Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Self-isolation: Financial Barriers

Vicky Foxcroft: What assessment he has made of implications for his policies of the financial barriers to people’s compliance with the requirement to self-isolate during the covid-19 outbreak; and if he will make a statement.

Judith Cummins: What assessment he has made of implications for his policies of the financial barriers to people’s compliance with the requirement to self-isolate during the covid-19 outbreak; and if he will make a statement.

Kate Hollern: What assessment he has made of implications for his policies of the financial barriers to people’s compliance with the requirement to self-isolate during the covid-19 outbreak; and if he will make a statement.

Sharon Hodgson: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the adequacy of financial support arrangements for people who are self-isolating during the covid-19 outbreak.

Steve Barclay: People who are instructed to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace and are on a qualifying means-tested benefit, unable to work from home and losing income as a result may be entitled to a payment of £500 from their local authority.

Vicky Foxcroft: We need people to self-isolate to control transmission and ease restrictions, yet many are continuing to work as they cannot survive on £95.85 statutory sick pay per week. The Chancellor has been asked about this on numerous occasions, and it was disappointing that nothing new was announced in his Budget. Does the Minister agree that those who do not  have access to occupational sick pay and cannot work from home should be eligible for the Test and Trace support payments?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady is right that many people —indeed, the majority of workers—will have support from employers above statutory sick pay, but it is for the reason she outlines that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced that there will be a payment of £500 for those not qualifying for the means-tested benefit, paid through the discretionary scheme that was funded at the Budget and to be administered by local authorities.

Judith Cummins: Bradford Council has the highest demand for self-isolation payments in the country, reflecting the fact that most people in our city are unable to work from home. The standard scheme for people in receipt of certain benefits is fully funded, but the discretionary scheme, which the council must use for everyone else, is not. In fact, the funding for Bradford falls far short of demand, so will the Minister urgently look into this so that councils with a high demand can support all workers who need to self-isolate?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady makes a fair point, which is that there was a pressure on the scheme for local authorities. It is for exactly that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget that there will be an increase to £20 million per month for the discretionary scheme. He also listened to representations from the hon. Lady and others about widening the scope of eligibility under that scheme.

Kate Hollern: The Government have now made available £20 million a month in discretionary self-isolation funding for local authorities, despite only making £15 million available for four months when the scheme first started, and because of this, hundreds of people in Blackburn have been denied support to self-isolate. Does the Minister now accept that initial allocations fell well below what was needed and contributed to the rise in cases, and does he think that that is fair on my constituents?

Steve Barclay: It is right that there was support in place, but it is also right that my right hon Friend the Chancellor has listened to points made by Members across the House, which is why the discretionary support has been increased and also why it has been extended to cover parents who are unable to work because they are caring for a child who is self-isolating and a number of other factors. I think that shows once again the willingness of this Government to respond to the path of the virus and to adapt our schemes to what is needed with, in particular, the extensive support that is now being offered and has throughout the pandemic been offered to local authorities.

Sharon Hodgson: In November, a constituent of mine was told to isolate via the NHS covid-19 app. She would have been eligible for the isolation payment, but as she was told to isolate via the app, she was never given an NHS Test and Trace account ID, and therefore her application could go no further. My constituent was affected financially as she could not work, and she has been going round in circles, even with my help, trying to access the payment. Can the Minister advise if my constituent can still access this payment retrospectively?

Steve Barclay: It is always difficult to comment without seeing the full facts of an individual case, and I know the hon. Lady is always an incredibly assiduous constituency Member and will ensure that the case is looked at. On the specifics, I would also point to the fact that there is a wider package of support as well. For example, in addition to the self-isolation payments, there is often eligibility for self-employed workers through the self-employed income support scheme. There is a wide range of measures, but obviously it will depend on the individual case.

Meg Hillier: Test and Trace has now been allocated £37 billion, but its head, Baroness Dido Harding, has told both the Public Accounts Committee and the Science and Technology Committee that the big struggle is to get people to isolate. So, although the Government have provided support for people to self-isolate, surely the Chief Secretary can go back and look again to ensure that what the Treasury is providing enables test, trace and isolate to be truly effective, or we are really not going to beat this pandemic?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady is right about the importance of Test and Trace; it is key to our unlocking the economy and to addressing the much more substantive costs in terms of the non-pharmaceutical interventions. As she will know as Chair of the PAC, while I as Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will always look at the cost of Test and Trace, the bigger prize is getting our economy opened. On the substantive point the hon. Lady raises on the self-isolation payments, again I point to the fact that at the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the funding for discretionary support; that sits alongside the £500 itself, and is in addition to the wider support that the majority of employers provide.

James Murray: The Government’s road map out lockdown says that self-isolation is critically important to halting the spread of disease, yet Baroness Harding has recently admitted that financial difficulties prevent people from self-isolating and a year ago the Health Secretary admitted he could not live on statutory sick pay of £94.25 a week. It is now £95.85 a week, so can the Minister explain why the Chancellor refuses simply to guarantee that anyone who has to rely on statutory sick pay or is unable to access even that should be eligible for the £500 payment?

Steve Barclay: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has actually read the Budget announcement made last week, because the discretionary element of the Test and Trace support payments applies even if people are not in receipt of means-tested benefits. So it does recognise the point raised by Members that it is important that there is an incentive for people to be tested; that is what the £500 payment through the Test and Trace system addresses. But in addition Members raised cases which were just outside the means-tested element of Test and Trace; that is the issue that the discretionary fund addresses, and it was dealt with in the Budget last week.

Covid-19: Support for Charity Sector

Craig Whittaker: What fiscal steps he is taking to support the charity sector in response to the covid-19 outbreak.

Steve Barclay: The Government have provided an unprecedented multibillion- pound package of support for Britain’s charities, including £750 million of dedicated funding that has helped more than 15,000 organisations across the country respond to the impacts of covid-19 and relieve the pressure on our NHS.

Craig Whittaker: As we all know, yesterday marked International Women’s Day, a day when we celebrate and recognise the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. However, this pandemic has also shone a light on domestic abuse and the struggles of many women across the country, so will my right hon. Friend set out what steps he is taking to support charities in this field so we can ensure that victims and their children can access the support they need?

Steve Barclay: I join my hon. Friend in marking International Women’s Day yesterday, and he raises a very important issue. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the Budget last week committed a further £90 million of funding; that, of course, builds on the £125 million announced at the spending review and indeed the earlier £25 million that had also been provided, recognising the 65% increase in calls to the national domestic abuse hotline and the renewed focus within Government on this important issue.

Alison Thewliss: Charities across these islands have done amazing work through the pandemic, so with the Finance Bill coming up will the Treasury reward the efforts of these charities and encourage the public to donate by temporarily increasing the rate of gift aid from 20% to 25% and expanding the small donations scheme to make gift aid much easier to claim?

Steve Barclay: I join the hon. Lady in recognising the huge contribution that charities have made. In respect of specific tax measures, obviously they were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget last week, but I remind the hon. Lady of the £750 million of dedicated funding that has been provided to date in recognition of that important work.

Regional Equity of Infrastructure Investment

Geraint Davies: What assessment he has made of the regional equity of infrastructure investment (a) in Wales and (b) throughout the UK.

Jesse Norman: Once in every Parliament, the National Infrastructure Commission publishes a national infrastructure assessment. The first assessment was launched in July 2018, and the commission operates UK-wide.

Geraint Davies: Wales has 5% of the population but it has had only 2% of the railway enhancement investment over decades, and it has the lowest household income. Given that HS2 will not pass through Wales, will the Minister and the Treasury look very carefully at providing a high-speed rail link between Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea and beyond—over 3 million people live there—in line with the Burns review, to help the agenda for levelling up and connecting the Union, and to give us our fair share of rail investment based on need?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Member for his question. Of course, he will be aware that the benefits of HS2 are not, by any means, just restricted to the cities that are on its route; it is a national project of significance. More widely, Wales has done very well in the last Budget, if I might remind him more generally, with accelerated funding for the Swansea bay, north Wales and mid-Wales city growth deals, money for the hydrogen hub and, of course, £30 million towards the global centre of rail excellence in Neath Port Talbot. What I would say, though, is that of course we do now have a UK infrastructure bank, which will be looking at issues of infrastructure across the country, including in the devolved Administrations.

Covid-19: Support for Business

Tom Hunt: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Laura Trott: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Greg Smith: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Mark Menzies: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Rishi Sunak: The Government are providing over £407 billion-worth of support for the UK economy over this year and next. Contained within that is considerable support for business, through discounted loans, cash grants, VAT reductions and tax deferrals, all designed to help business get through this crisis and protect as many jobs as possible.

Tom Hunt: I very much welcome the £25 million that Ipswich will be getting through a town deal, and the creation of Freeport East. Some 6,000 of my constituents are employed, directly or indirectly, through the port of Felixstowe. The town deal will create a new tech campus and a maritime skills academy to feed jobs—high-skilled jobs—in the area. Therefore, does the Chancellor agree that both the town deal money and the new freeport, together, will be vital to the creation of new local skills in Ipswich and therefore crucial to supporting local business at this difficult time?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I congratulate him; he has long campaigned on the importance of a town deal for his local community and, indeed, a freeport. I am delighted that this Budget could deliver both of those for his constituents and I agree with him that it will deliver growth, jobs and prosperity to his local area.

Laura Trott: I thank the Chancellor for his earlier response. The measures in the Budget provided a lifeline to high streets in my constituency, from Westerham to Swanley. In particular, the restart grants are much anticipated. Can the Chancellor confirm when local authorities will be able to begin distributing these vital grants?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must get support to businesses as quickly as possible. I am pleased to confirm to her that guidance will be published, hopefully by the end of this week, for local authorities, and that the restart grants, which are designed to take the place of our grant scheme that runs out at the end of April, will be distributed to local authorities in the first full week—the week commencing 5 April. I hope that is a reassurance to her and her businesses, and that local authorities can get the cash to them at this vital time.

Greg Smith: The scale of support for businesses has been truly outstanding, but may I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the coach industry? Pre-pandemic, it already found itself heavily indebted because of requirements that the state put on it, such as the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 and Euro 6 requirements, so will he look again at how the coach industry can be supported, given the level of debt it is already in?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for shining a spotlight on this important industry; he is right to do so. I know that he will be talking to the Department for Transport about regulations for the industry, but I can tell him that we will be providing local authorities with discretionary funding of around £425 million to sit alongside the restart grants. That money, at the discretion of local areas, can be used to support businesses such as coach businesses in their areas.

Mark Menzies: I just want to take this opportunity to thank the Chancellor for the way in which he has engaged with me and other Members representing coastal communities throughout the lifetime of the pandemic. I know the extensive measures he has put in place, particularly for the hospitality sector, will make a huge difference to those businesses surviving. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to monitor and work with me to ensure that local businesses get all the support they need for their continued recovery?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend has been instrumental in providing on-the-ground information to me and my team about the particular situation facing hospitality businesses in coastal communities like his. He is an absolute champion for them and rightly so. They are an important part of his local economy and I am glad that this Budget supported them. He has my assurance that we will continue to work with him and them to get them the support that they deserve.

Pat McFadden: The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that £27 billion-worth of loans made under coronavirus loan schemes will never be repaid. Why is the Chancellor insisting that banks pursue that as conventional business debt, when the circumstances that gave rise to those loans are anything but conventional? Would lifting the debt burden on businesses and turning it into a contingent tax liability not help to fire up the economy, set business free and really get Britain moving again?

Rishi Sunak: What we have done is provide a scheme called Pay as You Grow to give businesses incredible flexibility and generosity in how they repay bounce  back loans. Those loans at an instant can be turned automatically into 10-year loans, which reduces the monthly cash payment by almost 50%. Beyond that, there are opportunities for interest-only periods and payment holidays, all of which will support the cash flow of businesses. We also have to get a balance with the taxpayer in all of this, which is why we have taken the approach we have. I am sad that the right hon. Gentleman did not also welcome the £25 million of investment in his local community through a town deal in this Budget, which will help local businesses there as well.

Alison Thewliss: The Save our Salons campaign presented to the gaps in support all-party group this morning. It remains hugely frustrated that the hair, beauty and holistic service industry has had no sector-specific support from the Chancellor, despite contributing £9.2 billion to the economy. Can the Chancellor explain why he has decided to ignore the calls from this largely female industry to chop VAT to 5%?

Rishi Sunak: With regard to VAT, I am sure the hon. Lady knows that the majority of businesses in the personal care sector are below the VAT threshold, so they do not actually pay any VAT. What we did do is include that sector in the more generous restart grants, so, depending on their rateable value, businesses in that sector, like those in hospitality, will be able to receive grants of up to £18,000.

Mel Stride: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement in the Budget of the super deduction, which will definitely have a very positive impact on investment. Of course, it will primarily do that by pulling forward what would have been future investment into a more recent time period. What measures is my right hon. Friend looking to, to ensure that that increase in corporate investment in the shorter term is continued into the medium and longer term?

Rishi Sunak: I am glad my right hon. Friend recognises the importance of the super deduction. He is right that it will bring forward investment, but I believe it will also increase the amount of investment as well, given the attractiveness of doing so. What I would point him to are a couple of other announcements in the Budget. One is a consultation to reform our research and development tax credits regime, which we hope to conduct over the course of this year to make sure of support for investment in R&D in a way that reflects current R&D practices. Secondly, our freeports agenda contains enhanced capital allowances, and structures and building allowances, which last well beyond the period of the super deduction and will serve as an incentive for capital investment in those areas for years to come.

Covid-19: Support for Job Retention

Gary Sambrook: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support job retention during the covid-19 outbreak.

Rishi Sunak: In July last year, the OBR forecast unemployment to peak at around just under 12%. Now, because of policy development,  it has forecast a much lower peak of 6.5%. That means 1.8 million fewer people who are expected to lose their jobs. Whether it is through interventions such as the furlough scheme, we remain committed to protecting, supporting and creating jobs.

Gary Sambrook: The furlough scheme has helped to protect 11.2 million jobs across the UK, including nearly 6,000 jobs in my Birmingham, Northfield constituency, so I take this opportunity to thank the Chancellor for the extension until September. Does he agree that this will give businesses the vital breathing space needed to be able to plan as we go along the Prime Minister’s road map?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of protecting jobs. The extension of the furlough scheme on generous terms beyond the end of the road map is designed to give his local businesses and others the reassurance that they need to reopen safely and confidently. I know he will be keen to protect as many of those jobs as possible in his local area and I am delighted that this Government can support him in doing so.

Bridget Phillipson: A SAGE—Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies —adviser is reported to have said:
“I thought the chancellor was in charge. He was the main person who was responsible for the second wave.”
Does the Chancellor accept that his refusal to follow the science by pitting public health against the economy led to worse outcomes for both?

Rishi Sunak: I urge the hon. Lady to be a little bit careful about what she reads in the newspaper. At all steps in this crisis, we have indeed taken the advice of our scientific advisers. Let us go back to September, which I think is what she is referring to. At that time—as she knows from the SAGE minutes herself, which are published, rather than unsourced quotes in newspapers—the evidence was finely balanced and there were many things for Ministers to consider. The consideration at that point was that the tiered system was working and deserved to be given a chance.

UK Fiscal Policy: Living Standards (Scotland)

Kenny MacAskill: What recent discussions he has had with his Scottish Government counterpart on the effect of UK fiscal policy on living standards in Scotland.

Marion Fellows: What recent discussions he has had with his Scottish Government counterpart on the effect of UK fiscal policy on living standards in Scotland.

Amy Callaghan: What recent discussions he has had with his Scottish Government counterpart on the effect of UK fiscal policy on living standards in Scotland.

Steve Barclay: I have frequent discussions with the Scottish Government Finance Secretary and spoke to her ahead of the Budget last week.

Kenny MacAskill: Despite furlough, high streets face devastation—first shops and now pubs, an even harder space to fill. Was the Budget not an opportunity to support what are community assets in urban as well as rural areas and where alcohol consumption is supervised and not unchecked? With supermarkets having made huge profits during lockdown, much of that through alcohol sales, is it not time to support the Social Market Foundation’s call to increase alcohol duty on off-trade to sustain the on-trade in our communities?

Steve Barclay: Many businesses across Scotland argued for the alcohol freeze, not least the Scottish whisky industry. They also argued for the fuel freeze, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered. I am also surprised, when the hon. Gentleman talks of community, that he does not even recognise the extra capacity funding that his community received in the Budget. With all these things that impact the community, clearly, the additional £1.2 billion of funding received by the Scottish Government through Barnett consequentials at the Budget will again enable the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to deliver better services in his community.

Marion Fellows: The poverty Chancellor has refused to make permanent the £20 universal credit increase and apply it to legacy benefits, with 75% of those affected being disabled. If he refuses to change course, 60,000 Scots, including 20,000 children, will be left in poverty and forced to decide between heating and eating. If the Minister was in their position, what would he choose: heating or eating?

Steve Barclay: First, as was set out in analysis published with the Budget, the measures that the Government have taken have supported the poorest working households the most. Secondly, the hon. Lady also failed to mention the additional capacity funding for her community that was announced at the Budget. Thirdly, the Scottish Government requested specific powers in respect of benefits and tax, and, of course, they have the option to use those powers that they said that they wanted.

Amy Callaghan: As the Minister will be aware, the £20 uplift to universal credit has been a lifeline during the pandemic. Many families in my constituency are devastated that the uplift is set to end in September. With the Scottish Government committed to tackling child poverty, including through the game-changer Scottish child payment, the UK Government-imposed cliff edge could pose a significant setback. Does the Minister agree that plunging children and families into poverty, whether it is now or in September, is a callous act, and will he commit to a permanent uplift to universal credit?

Steve Barclay: We have managed to get a hat trick, because the hon. Lady also received capacity funding for her own area at the Budget but chose not to mention that funding, which will help the families she referred to. It is also slightly odd for her to talk about plunging into something when the Chancellor has announced an extension. Coupled with that, and the UK-wide measures that were set out at the Budget—including measures such as freezing fuel duty, which will help many families in her own constituency—there was an additional £1.2 billion of funding for the Scottish Government  and the powers to which I referred in my previous answer. Therefore, many families have been helped, including 480,000 existing claimants in Scotland as well as new claimants, and the families helped through the £500 one- off payment that was announced at the Budget. There was a strong package of support for Scotland, none of which she chose to mention in her question.

Transport Connectivity

Robert Largan: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to improve transport connectivity across the UK.

Sally-Ann Hart: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to improve transport connectivity across the UK.

Simon Jupp: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to improve transport connectivity across the UK.

Alexander Stafford: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to improve transport connectivity across the UK.

Jesse Norman: Improving transport connectivity across the UK is central to the Government’s levelling up agenda, and local residents across the UK will benefit from upgrades to infrastructure that improve everyday life as a result of the launch of the £4.8 billion levelling up fund. The Government have also maintained their commitment to already announced transport investment through the transforming cities fund and the roads investment strategy, and Budget 2021 confirmed capacity funding allocations for the £4.2 billion of intra-city transport settlements, so that the city regions receiving settlements can develop investment-ready transport plans to deliver on local priorities.

Robert Largan: Politicians of all parties have been promising to build the Mottram bypass for more than 50 years. I am really pleased that Highways England and Balfour Beatty recently signed a contract to build the bypass, and a formal consultation has now been carried out on the detailed proposals, meaning that we are closer than we have ever been before to finally getting it built. Can the Minister assure me that the Government remain committed to building the bypass as soon as possible? The people of Glossop and Hadfield have waited long enough.

Jesse Norman: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has been a vociferous supporter of this scheme and I can happily confirm that the Government remain committed to upgrading the A57 so as to improve connectivity between Manchester and Sheffield. The development consent order is on track to be submitted shortly and construction is expected to start in early 2023.

Sally-Ann Hart: Investing in improved transport infrastructure is well recognised by this Government as a necessity for turbocharging our economy and levelling up. Beautiful Hastings and Rye has some of the most antiquated road and rail infrastructure in the country, which discourages new businesses from locating there  and inhibits economic growth. Network Rail is currently finalising a strategic business case for HS1. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that funding will be available to finance such a vital project?

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend will be aware that the strategic outline business case for the Kent and East Sussex coastal connectivity scheme includes proposals to extend HS1 services from Ashford International to Hastings and Rye. It is currently being taken forward by Network Rail and is due to be submitted to the Department for Transport in April 2021. It will then be reviewed by the Department and by stakeholders in Kent and East Sussex County Councils.

Simon Jupp: Improving road and rail connections across all four nations of the UK will improve the quality of life for our communities and I am really looking forward to seeing the Hendy review this summer. However, there is no doubt that it will take the aviation sector longer than most to recover from the crisis. Taxes, including air passenger duty, need urgent reform to help the industry to get back on its feet. What plans does the Treasury have to remove the double charging of domestic air passenger duty, a call backed by regional airports including Exeter in my constituency and Newquay, which particularly rely on domestic flights to all corners of the United Kingdom?

Jesse Norman: The Treasury is committed to consulting on aviation tax reform. As part of that, we will consider the APD treatment of domestic flights. Unfortunately, the consultation has been delayed in recognition of the rather challenging circumstances that the aviation industry is currently facing, but we will update the House on this in due course.

Alexander Stafford: Car ownership in Maltby in Rother Valley is lower than the national average and buses provide a vital lifeline. However, our services are severely lacking. You cannot get a direct bus between Maltby, my largest town, and Dinnington, my second largest town and, if you do take public transport, that five-mile journey takes almost an hour. What fiscal steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that communities in Rother Valley are linked up, so that those without cars have the same opportunities to be economically active, to get to and from jobs and even to go shopping as those with cars?

Jesse Norman: It is no secret that bus services are close to the Prime Minister’s heart. The Government have committed to improving bus services and since the start of the pandemic have supported operators with more than £1 billion of funding, as well as with £120 million at the spending review for the delivery of new zero emission buses. The national bus strategy is due to be published soon and will start to set out this wider ambition. I am also pleased to note that Budget 2020 allocated £166 million to the Sheffield city region from the transforming cities fund to support local transport investment, including bus infrastructure.

Abena Oppong-Asare: To deliver transport connectivity in every part of the United Kingdom, we need long-term investment in infrastructure but, staggeringly, the OBR analysis reveals that the Chancellor has cut capital investment plans by  half a billion pounds since last March. The Budget also made no mention of Northern Powerhouse Rail and slashed the Transport for the North budget by 40%. Can the Minister explain why the reality of the Budget on infrastructure investment is so far from this Government’s rhetoric?

Jesse Norman: I do not recognise the figures the hon. Lady has used at all. The facts are that this Government published the “National Infrastructure Strategy” in November, which set out plans for £300 billion-worth of public investment over the next few years, as well as supporting £300 billion of private investment. Since then, the Chancellor has announced the new UK infrastructure bank, which will further support the development of infrastructure and levelling up, and the development of our green infrastructure across the UK.

Covid-19: Debt Owed by Developing Countries

Mary Foy: What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on requiring private creditors to cancel debt owed by developing countries during the covid-19 pandemic.

John Glen: The Chancellor regularly engages with his international partners in the G7, G20 and the Paris Club on debt issues, including private sector participation in debt restructurings, and Treasury officials are also engaging with the private sector on this issue.

Mary Foy: As the Government slash international aid, covid-19 could push up to 150 million people globally into extreme poverty, yet many banks and asset managers operating in the UK, including HSBC, BlackRock and J.P. Morgan, continue to demand debt repayments from developing countries, leaving them with less money to respond to covid-19. Will the Government urgently introduce new legislation to prevent developing countries from being sued in UK courts by banks, asset managers and vulture funds if they are unable to pay their debts as a result of the pandemic?

John Glen: I note the hon. Lady’s long-standing interest in this subject, but I want to state clearly that the Government support the role of the low-income developing countries to be supported by the UK’s G7 presidency. We have made clear our expectation that the private sector and the firms she mentioned will offer debt treatment on at least as favourable terms as the official sector, under the common framework, as agreed by the G20 last November.

Covid-19: Ineligibility for Income Support Schemes

Stephen Doughty: What fiscal steps he is taking to help support people ineligible for his Department's covid-19 income support schemes.

Rishi Sunak: In order to support people through the next stages of the pandemic, the Government have extended both the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme through to September, which will help millions of people up and down the country.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Chancellor for his answer. The Welsh Labour Government this week announced a further £30 million to support hospitality and tourism, and freelancers working in our creative sectors are going to get a further round of support worth £8.9 million—this is targeting support to fill gaps left by the Chancellor. I accept that many people have had welcome support, but huge numbers of people are coming up to a year of little or no support because they have been excluded from UK Government support over the past year. What will the Chancellor do for all those excluded, left out and left behind the curve over the past year?

Rishi Sunak: I am glad the Welsh Government will receive more than £740 million in Barnett consequentials as a result of this Budget, which works for the whole United Kingdom. With regard to the self-employment scheme, what I can say is that we are now able to bring in those people who filed tax returns for the first time in the tax year 2019-20. That was something that many colleagues asked for. I am pleased that we were able to deliver that now that the tax deadline has passed, and it means that more than 600,000 more people will be able to benefit from this world-leading support for the self-employed.

Covid-19: Support for the Self-Employed

Andrew Gwynne: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of continuing support for the self-employed as covid-19 public health restrictions are lifted; and if he will make a statement.

Yasmin Qureshi: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of continuing support for the self-employed as covid-19 public health restrictions are lifted; and if he will make a statement.

Jesse Norman: The Government have announced that the self-employment income support scheme will continue until September, with a fourth and a fifth grant. This provides certainty to business as the economy reopens and it means that the self-employment income support scheme continues to be one of the most generous covid-19 support schemes for self-employment income around the world.

Andrew Gwynne: That is welcome for those who qualify for it, but a year ago it was the Chancellor who said that he would do “whatever it takes” to protect people. There are still millions of self-employed people without any support since this crisis started and they will not forget that either. It is untenable. Why will Ministers not finally act and do whatever it takes to ensure that this important sector of the economy also has the chance to succeed post the pandemic?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of course, we have put in place £407 billion-worth of support across the whole of the pandemic, which is an astonishing level of support for a very wide range of businesses and people across the country. In relation to the self-employed, he may not be aware, but I have bent over backwards to engage with different groups of the self-employed. Repeatedly, across different meetings, we have looked with the greatest care at the proposals that  they have put forward to bring in people who may not be able to qualify at the moment. As the Chancellor mentioned, 600,000 people previously ineligible may now be eligible, including those newly self-employed in 2019-20.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Government may well throw these figures about, but we know that 3.8 million self-employed people have had no financial support throughout this whole pandemic. Freelancers, small companies and other people across Bolton and this country want the Chancellor to recognise the fact that his continued silence is just not good enough.

Jesse Norman: In mentioning Bolton, the hon. Lady somehow neglected to mention the £22.9 million-worth of towns funding that Bolton has recently received. I thought that she might kick off with that. The answer that I gave was perfectly clear about the matter: we are bending over backwards to support people. We have leant into this issue as hard as we can and we will continue to do so.

National Living Wage

John Baron: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on plans to increase the national living wage.

Kemi Badenoch: As the Chancellor reaffirmed at the Budget, the Government are increasing the national living wage by 2.2% from £8.72 to £8.91, an above-inflation pay rise. The Government remain committed to their ambitious target for the national living wage to reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024 provided that economic conditions allow. The Treasury will continue to work closely with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that we reach this target.

John Baron: In welcoming the Government’s generous economic support packages and the increase in the national living wage, may I just ask the Minister to consider further increasing it ahead of inflation in the years ahead to help achieve our one nation agenda and ensure that work pays? I suggest that, combined with an effective and controlled immigration policy, that will also encourage businesses to invest in their workforce and in research and development generally, which will help to improve productivity.

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He should know that the Government remain committed to ensuring that work pays and to helping to end low pay. As he knows, investment to raise productivity is vital for long-term sustainable growth in wages. I am sure that his request is one that we will consider, as always, in future Budgets. Taxes and minimum wages are always under review, but this Government are absolutely focused on levelling up. We have set out our plan to build back better, which will drive economic growth that levels up the whole of the UK through significant investment in infrastructure as well as skills and innovation.

Economic Recovery

David Simmonds: What fiscal steps he is taking to support the UK’s economic recovery.

Rishi Sunak: Taking into account all the measures announced since last March, this Government are providing more than £400 billion of direct fiscal support to the economy over this year and next. That will rank as one of the most comprehensive and generous responses of any country anywhere in the world.

David Simmonds: [Inaudible]—and the further support announced for businesses. The extension of the VAT and the business rates holiday, alongside the restart grants, are particularly welcome for businesses in my constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, especially on our high streets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these steps will support our short-term economic recovery, and ensure that businesses have the breathing space to protect jobs as they begin to bounce back?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our priority economically is to protect, support and create as many jobs as possible, and the support that we have provided to businesses will help to do that. My hon. Friend talks about breathing space; he is right to say that measures to improve businesses’ cash flow in the short term will help give them the breathing space they need to drive our recovery as they begin to reopen in the coming months.

Topical Questions

Stephen Timms: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Rishi Sunak: Last week I presented to the House a Budget to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people, confirming more than £400 billion of support over this year and next, ranking as one of the most comprehensive responses of any country anywhere in the world. We also set out a fair and honest plan to begin fixing our public finances while also starting the work of building our future economy.

Stephen Timms: How are the crucial EU negotiations on the memorandum of understanding on financial services progressing? Given its importance to the UK economy—by comparison, for example, with fishing—why was it not included in the overall deal?

Rishi Sunak: I cannot comment on ongoing negotiations; we remain committed to a constructive dialogue with our European partners regarding the memorandum of understanding, and I can confirm that those discussions are under way. With regard to financial services, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman saw the announcement of our listings review. I thank Jonathan Hill for his excellent work. We will take forward those reforms together with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that the UK remains one of the most attractive places anywhere in the world for companies to raise the finance they need to empower their future growth.

Julian Lewis: The food and drink wholesalers on whom the hospitality industry depends are still excluded from business rates relief, and the additional restriction grants—which do help some of them substantially—are awarded entirely at the discretion of individual local authorities. Can that  particular postcode lottery be replaced by a directive to ensure much greater consistency in awarding these vital grants?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend has raised this industry with me multiple times, and he is right to do so. Although some food and drink wholesalers have been significantly impacted, others—for example, those that predominately serve the public sector—have not been, so I do not think it would be fair to provide blanket support. He talked about a postcode lottery. The other side of that coin is empowering local government and local decision making, and I believe that is the right approach. We have announced £425 million of additional discretionary support to local authorities, but I am sure that his raising the issue in the House in this way will give his local council and others the steer they need to direct support to this important industry.

Anneliese Dodds: In 2017 the Chancellor asked a Member of this House whether Labour’s proposed increase in corporation tax
“would make it more or less likely that international investors would want to invest here in the UK?”—[Official Report, 12 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 218WH.]
What’s the answer, Chancellor?

Rishi Sunak: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is raising the topic of corporation tax at this Budget. I feel that we have had various different versions of the Labour party policy on this topic over the past couple of weeks. What I can say is that we are honest with the British people about the challenges facing our public finances, and we have set out a fair and honest way to address those challenges. This will remain one of the most internationally competitive places anywhere in the world to invest, to grow a business and to create jobs, and this Government will always deliver on that promise.

Anneliese Dodds: Last week, the Chancellor said he wanted to “level with” the public. He mentioned a moment ago that he wanted to take an honest approach. Well, the head of the NHS just confirmed that he budgeted for the 2.1% pay rise that nurses expected, so we need a straight answer now from the Chancellor: why do the Conservatives believe that our nurses are worth less now than they were before the pandemic?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to all those working on the frontline of our NHS and other public services. They are doing a fantastic job, and that is why this Government have supported the NHS with tens of billions of pounds of extra funding through this pandemic and will continue to do so. With regard to public sector pay, we set out a policy in November, but, given the situation, we were taking a more targeted approach to public sector pay to balance fairness and to protect as many jobs as possible. The hon. Lady will know that the NHS was exempted from that policy and NHS workers will receive a pay rise next year.

Saqib Bhatti: This morning I spoke to a roundtable of businesses from across the country, and there was much positivity for the restart grant and the business rates holiday, which will help to open up our high streets. However, many of the businesses I speak to still speak of the need for long-term reform of the business rates system, so will my right hon.  Friend update the House on the outcome of the consultation that was carried out last year and what the long-term aspiration for business rates reform is?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue, as he has done with me several times on behalf of his local businesses. He is right that we are reviewing business rates. We are in the midst of that process. The next stage will be to publish all the consultation responses that we have received, which will happen shortly, and we will take forward the policy process over the course of this year. We outlined many options for potential reforms in the paper. I look forward to receiving from him some ideas on what the reforms might be. In the short term, we are providing a £6 billion tax cut in business rates, delivering a 75% discount on business rates for the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses as they emerge from this pandemic.

Alex Norris: Every year of delay in integrated rail improvements in the midlands and the north means a missed £5 billion boost for our economy as well as delaying an additional 150,000 jobs. The Chancellor’s Build Back Better plan promises the long-awaited integrated rail plan within three months. Will he confirm that this is an absolute maximum, and will he or one of his Ministers meet me and regional businesses to hear more about our exciting plans for our community?

Rishi Sunak: This Government are committed to record amounts of investment in infrastructure, both road and rail, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary earlier. The Budget announced upgrades for several stations in and around the midlands after representations that we heard from the fantastic Mayor, Andy Street, about the needs of his area. We remain committed to publishing the integrated rail plan in due course.

Greg Smith: My right hon. Friend has rightly been open with the House and the public about the scale of the challenge to the public finances, but on a point of detail, further to the assumptions in the Red Book, does his Department plan to undertake dynamic scoring of the changes to corporation akin to the previous detailed CGE—computable general equilibrium —modelling since 2010, and will this be published in full?

Jesse Norman: What a fantastically niche question from my hon. Friend, and how delighted I am to be able to answer it. He will know that scoring is a matter for the OBR. As the Budget policy costings in the Budget 2021 document set out, the costing for corporation tax has been adjusted to reflect behavioural responses to an increase in the rate of corporation tax. It is important to be clear that dynamic scoring can include a number of potential behavioural responses, such as adjustments to reflect the impact on the incentive to incorporate, on profit shifting, and on investment. If he is so minded, he can find further detail on page 196 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”.

Paul Blomfield: As some students return to campus this week, those studying in Northern Ireland will each receive £500 support.  The Welsh Government have provided hardship funding equivalent to £300 per student. In Scotland, it is £80. For those studying in England, hardship funds equate to just £36, so does the Chancellor not accept the case for equal support across the UK? Students have lost vital income from part-time jobs, paid rent on unused accommodation and faced other costs, so will he meet the all-party parliamentary group for students to discuss our recommendations for hardship support and funding to make up for missed learning opportunities?

Steve Barclay: I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss that matter in more detail. As he will recognise, one of the features of the Budget was the number of UK-wide measures, but at the same time he is quite right to point to the additional £2.4 billion of Barnett consequential funding that was allocated to the devolved Administrations, which has enabled them to apply further support as a result of the fiscal strength that is offered by the UK Treasury. I am of course happy to discuss the specific point with him in more detail.

Pauline Latham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said the day after the comprehensive spending review that the Government were looking at when they will bring forward legislation on the 0.7% of gross national income target. Can he update us? What is the Government’s timescale for bringing forward the legislative proposals to reduce the annual target of spending 0.7% of GNI on aid to 0.5%?

John Glen: The Foreign Secretary is continuing to look very carefully at the legislative requirements and will set out further detail in due course on how the Government intend to proceed.

Kenny MacAskill: If the Government are unwilling to support the licensed trade through varying duty rates, there is another fiscal policy to sustain hard-pressed pubs in our communities. Italy has reduced VAT and alcohol sales in pubs and restaurants. Should that not be replicated here, sustaining public revenue while supporting the consumption of alcohol on supervised premises and maintaining community assets in our towns and villages?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Gentleman will know we are carrying out an alcohol duty review that will look at all these decisions in the round, and I am very happy to speak to him in more detail specifically about any particular schemes or requests that he has.

Stuart Anderson: If every working adult in Wolverhampton spent £5 a week extra with local businesses such as Mode Menswear and Tony’s Deli, it would boost the local economy by around £780,000 a week. What is the Chancellor doing to ensure that local independent shops and city centre businesses can bounce back from covid-19 in Wolverhampton?

Kemi Badenoch: The Government are supporting these businesses through new restart grants—a one-off cash grant of up to £6,000 per business premises for non-essential  retailers in England—and up to £18,000 for hospitality and leisure businesses. They will also benefit from a five-month extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme, a further 12 months’ relief from business rates and a new UK-wide recovery loan scheme. Tony’s Deli, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and other businesses serving hot food can also enjoy a 12-month VAT cut at 5% until the end of September, and at 12.5% until the end of March.

Ian Lavery: Earlier this week, there was an attempt by the Health Secretary to justify the incredibly insulting 1% pay offer to our nurses by contrasting it with the Government-imposed pay freeze on our heroic essential key workers. That  is a pay freeze on 2.5 million public servants. Can the Chancellor confirm when he will recognise their worth, do the right thing and announce the lifting of the pay freeze?

Rishi Sunak: A majority of those working in the public sector will see an increase in their pay this forthcoming year as a result of our pay policy. Importantly, those earning less than the median UK salary will receive a £250 increase in their pay, because we want to protect those on the lowest incomes. Even at a difficult time, that is what this Government are committed to doing.

Ben Everitt: Treasury Ministers are no doubt aware of my support for a brand-new university for Milton Keynes, focused on science, technology, engineering and mathematics and digital skills, so vital for our future economy. I wonder, though, whether they are aware that we are already home to the Open University, which is a pioneer of modular learning and is upskilling and reskilling—important for our future economy. The Budget last week announced support for further education and skills. Will that apply to institutions like the Open University?

Kemi Badenoch: We are committed to improving skills in the economy and levelling up productivity across England. That will be achieved through our lifetime skills guarantee and further reforms, which will create jobs and opportunity across the country, supporting us to build back better from the coronavirus pandemic. We will provide further detail and a full conclusion to the review of post-18 education and funding at the next comprehensive spending review. I thank my hon. Friend and the Open University for their engagement on this so far.

Zarah Sultana: The disgraceful 1% pay rise for NHS workers is really a pay cut when inflation is factored in. The Prime Minister claims that it is all we can afford. The Government had no problem finding £37 billion for the private test and trace system, an extra £16 billion for the military budget, or hundreds of millions of pounds in dodgy covid contracts for the Health Secretary’s WhatsApp contacts. NHS workers have seen their pay fall by more than 10% in real terms in the past decade, so instead of handing out fortunes to mates and donors, will the   Chancellor heed the calls of trade unions and NHS staff and give them the pay rise that they deserve, which is 15% to make up for a decade of lost pay?

Steve Barclay: With respect, the hon. Lady is simply wrong on the facts with her question. Under the Agenda for Change three-year award, the average increase this year was 2.5%, not the figure she alluded to. But of course, the Government have asked the pay review body to consider a number of factors and, as is normal practice, the Department of Health and Social Care has set out what is affordable within its budgets.

Ian Levy: The Government recently confirmed the first eight sites to be awarded freeport status. That will provide great opportunities for prosperity in those areas. In my home constituency of Blyth Valley we have the only deep-water port in Northumberland, with investments in offshore wind, such as at the Catapult, as well as Britishvolt with the only gigaplant in the UK. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of granting a second round of bidding for areas such as Blyth that were not successful on this occasion?

Kemi Badenoch: Freeports will be national hubs for international trade, innovation and commerce and they will regenerate communities across the UK. The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government led a fair, open and transparent selection process to determine successful freeport locations in England. Unfortunately, as with any competitive process, there will always be those that are unsuccessful, and I am afraid there are no plans to designate other freeports in England. Freeports are part of a wider package of UK Government support, which invests in skills, infrastructure and innovation at local, regional and national levels. As part of that package, Blyth was awarded £11 million through the future high streets fund in December and is also one of 101 towns eligible for up to £25 million funding from the towns fund.

Nicholas Fletcher: With Doncaster missing out on its freeport bid, what other incentives does my hon. Friend believe there are for businesses to locate in the town?

John Glen: The Government are committed to encouraging business investment in Doncaster and its surrounding area, and at the Budget we confirmed £23 million funding for Goldthorpe’s town deal—just due west of the town—and that will boost economic growth and encourage business investment in the area. MHCLG is currently assessing the remaining 49 towns fund bids, including those from Doncaster and Stainforth; we will make further announcements on those in due course.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Government’s Publication of Contracts

Rachel Reeves: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will make a statement on the recent court order regarding the Government’s publication of contracts during the covid-19 pandemic.

Edward Argar: Although I am not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I hope the hon. Lady will none the less allow me to respond to her urgent question.
The first duty of any Government in a crisis is protecting their citizens, so our work to provide personal protective equipment was a critical part of our response. It was a herculean effort that involved setting up a new logistics network from scratch and expanding our PPE supply chain from 226 NHS trusts in England to more than 58,000 different settings. Our team has been working night and day on this vital national effort, and I can update the House that we have now delivered more than 8.8 billion items of PPE to those who need it. That work was taking place at a time when global demand was greater than ever before and rapid action was required, so we had to work at an unprecedented pace to get supplies to our frontline and the public.
Two weeks ago, in response to an urgent question from the hon. Lady, I updated the House on the initial High Court ruling. I will not set out that judgment at length once again, save to say that the case looked not at the awarding of the contracts, but rather at the delays in publishing the details of them as we responded to one of the greatest threats to public health that this country has ever seen. The hon. Lady’s question refers to a short declaratory judgment handed down subsequent to the original judgment in this matter, which makes a formal order as to the Government’s compliance with the relevant regulatory rules.
As before, I reiterate that we of course take the judgment of the Court very seriously and respect it. We have always been clear that transparency is vital, and the Court itself has found that there was no deliberate policy to delay publication. The fight against covid-19 is ongoing. As would be expected, we are agreeing new contracts as part of that fight all the time, and we will keep publishing details of them as we move forward.
I care passionately about transparency, and so does everyone in my Department. We will of course continue to look at how we can improve our response while we tackle one of the greatest threats to our public health that this nation has ever seen.

Rachel Reeves: This question and the answers to it really matter because our frontline workers were not adequately protected with the high-quality PPE that they needed during the pandemic. They matter because it is essential that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively and fairly, not handed out to those who happen to have close links with the party of government.
The Government ran down the PPE stockpile ahead of the pandemic, and that came back to haunt us when we needed it most. Contracts were handed out—many to friends of and donors linked to the Conservative party   —without any transparency. The Good Law Project took the Government to court, and on 19 February the High Court ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully, saying:
“The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the…contracts were awarded.”
Three days later, in this House, the Prime Minister said that
“the contracts are there on the record for everybody to see”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 638.]
But they are not. A judge confirmed through a court order last Friday that 100 contracts are still to be published. Will the Minister now take this opportunity to apologise for that statement and to put the record straight? Will the Government now finally agree to publish all 100 outstanding contracts by the end of this week?
For contracts that have failed, will the Minister tell us how much money has been and will be clawed back for taxpayers? Can he tell us which businesses were in the VIP fast lane for getting Government contracts and how they got there? Finally, can he honestly tell our brilliant NHS nurses, now facing a pay cut, that the Government have not wasted a single penny of their money on this curious incident of the missing contracts?

Edward Argar: It is a pleasure to be opposite the hon. Lady once again at the Dispatch Box—two weeks after we were last here. I will do my best to answer the questions she raised, not just for my own Department, but more broadly across Government.
The hon. Lady raised a number of points. She is absolutely right to say that transparency matters, because transparency of procurement and transparency in Government is one of the foundations of the trust that is so vital to our democracy. That is why we are working flat out to ensure that, as new contracts are awarded, the contract award notices and other relevant pieces of information are published in line with the requirements of regulations.
What is most important, though, is to recognise the situation that we faced last year, with rising infection rates, rising hospitalisation rates and the need to do everything we could—to “strain every sinew”, to quote one of the hon. Lady’s letters to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the time—to make sure we got those working flat out on the frontline what they needed to keep them safe. I pay tribute to the officials in my Department, who did exactly that: they focused on getting what was needed in bulk in an incredibly challenging global market, to make sure that PPE did not run out.
The hon. Lady quite rightly quoted the judgment, and I will quote paragraph 149 of the judgment—the original judgment, not the supplementary judgment. The judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, stated that
“the overall picture shows the Secretary of State moving close to complete compliance. The evidence as a whole suggests that the backlog arose largely in the first few months of the pandemic and that officials began to bear down on it during the autumn of 2020.”
I think that recognises the efforts that have been put in place to ensure that we meet our transparency requirements. One hundred per cent. of the Department’s CANs—contract aware notices—have been published.
The hon. Member asked a particular question in referring to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s comments on 22 February—I hope I am correct in surmising that. My right hon. Friend was responding to a question around the failure to publish the details of specific contracts that are subject to judicial reviews. I am advised that, at the time of his statement, the details for all the contracts under scrutiny were published.

Nigel Mills: As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I think that the Government’s following robust procurement measures is absolutely critical, but clearly a year ago we were not in normal circumstances; most reasonable people would accept that desperate times called for desperate measures. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are now following all normal, standard procurement processes? Will he confirm what percentage of the contracts from a year ago have been fully published and when the remainder will be published?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend highlights the situation we faced at the time. He also, quite rightly, highlights the importance of transparency and complying with all transparency processes. The Government invoked regulation 32, which recognised the exceptional circumstances that allowed for procurement without the usual tendering process. I believe that the usual tendering process could take, at a minimum, 25 days. My hon. Friend recalls the situation at the time. The Government did what we felt was right to ensure that we got the PPE that our frontline needed. The court case also found that there was no policy to deprioritise compliance with transparency regulations. I give him the assurance he seeks: the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that we fully comply with those regulations going forward.

Stewart Hosie: Some 94% of contracts awarded before 7 October were, unlawfully, not published in time and, as of late last week, 100 are still not published. Some 58% were awarded without a competitive tendering process. There are conflicts of interest, inadequate documentation, a high-priority crony lane and then the Prime Minister announcing that all of the contracts were,
“on the record for everybody to see”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 631.]
When he said that, it was simply not correct. Is the Minister not concerned that this failure in transparency, the potential conflicts of interest and a Prime Minister who does not even appear to know what is going on, simply feeds a perception of a Government doing profitable deals with friends and cronies, rather than delivering meaningful transparency that will drive value for money for the taxpayer?

Edward Argar: The right hon. Gentleman highlights quite accurately the 94%, which was cited in the subsequent judgment and the order that flowed from it, of the contracts that were late in publication. We accept that that is a statement of fact. The Department has published 100% of the CANs that it is obliged to publish that are related to this matter. He talked about a percentage that were procured without following a normal competitive tendering process—I think he referred to 58% as the percentage that were procured. That is entirely appropriate  under regulation 32, recognising the situation we faced at the time and the priority of this Government to make sure that, at pace, we got the PPE that our frontline needed to keep it safe.
On his final two points, I do not see in the judgments in this case or in any of the other scrutiny of this issue by Committees of this House or other organisations anything that asserts or finds that inappropriate conflicts of interest influenced how these contracts were awarded. I am proud to serve in a Government led by a Prime Minister who leads from the front and has done whatever is necessary to make sure this country gets through this pandemic.

Ben Spencer: This time last year, there was a desperate need to secure PPE urgently when, almost overnight, it became one of the most hotly sought-after commodities globally. I congratulate the Department on its Herculean efforts to keep my residents safe and get them the PPE they needed when the shortage hit. Of course, delays to publication are not ideal, and I am glad that the Department is urgently trying to resolve that. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of the review into the pandemic, we need to look at how procurement procedures can be improved when responding to a national crisis or, indeed, future pandemics?

Edward Argar: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue; he is a strong and vocal champion for the NHS and those who work in it. The context he sets is absolutely right. I will quote from the summary of the NAO report without making a value judgment on it. It highlighted in paragraph 2:
“Demand for PPE rocketed in England from March…There was also a surge in demand in other countries. At the same time, the global supply of PPE declined as a result of a fall in exports from China (the country that manufactures the most PPE) in February.”
That is a statement of fact, and it highlights the context in which we were operating.
My hon. Friend is right: all Governments should rightly look at what they have done and what lessons they can learn, to ensure that they are well prepared for future events.

Caroline Lucas: On 22 February, the Prime Minister answered my question about unpublished covid contracts by claiming:
“As for the contracts…all the details are on the record”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 634.]
Two days later, when the Minister was dragged to the Chamber, he did not tell us about the 100 contracts that were still not on the record. We had to wait for the High Court to reveal that last Friday. Are we expected to believe that the Prime Minister had not sought any briefing after the High Court found that his Secretary of State had acted unlawfully? If he sought no facts, why did he give such a categorical yet wildly inaccurate reply, and why was that inaccurate reply not corrected two days later by the Minister?

Edward Argar: At the point in time to which the hon. Lady is referring—22 February, when she asked the Prime Minister her question—I understand that we had published 100% of our contract award notices for contracts of the Department that were subject to the Court case, and I believe the Prime Minister spoke accurately.

Marco Longhi: Notwithstanding the answer that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), does he agree with my constituents and I that, during a national emergency, the British people want a Government who focus resources on saving lives over prioritising red tape?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes on behalf of his constituents. The overwhelming priority was to ensure that we got the PPE in the quantities we needed to our frontline, and we procured that in an incredibly challenging environment. I pay tribute to all the officials who worked flat out to do that. The Court judgment found that there was no policy of deprioritisation of meeting transparency requirements, but it also found as a matter of fact, which is clear in the judgment, that that bar was not met. That is something we have worked very hard on subsequently and continue to do so, to ensure that transparency requirements are met.

Meg Hillier: It feels a bit like groundhog day. Once again, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has overall responsibility for procurement, is missing in action, and the Health Minister has come to the House to talk about how breathlessly urgent it all was at the beginning of the pandemic—I do not disagree with that, but it is not an excuse for not publishing these contracts in time. With contracts worth more than £10 billion awarded without tendering action between the beginning of the pandemic and July, seeing that paperwork urgently is more important, not less. If the paperwork is still not being published in time—and this goes back to the problems we discussed two weeks ago—can the Minister not just apologise and give a firm commitment that from now on, every contract will be published in time? It is either insouciance or incompetence that they were not published in the first place.

Edward Argar: I have known the hon. Lady since I came to this House, so I will not take it personally if she suggests that, as I am not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the import of my answers is in some way diminished. I will endeavour to answer her specific questions. As I made clear, we have published 100% of the CANs that give the information on the contracts awarded—in the context of this case, the contracts awarded by the Department of Health and Social Care.
However, the hon. Lady asked a very fair question at the end about the future, and I can give her the reassurance that this Department is doing everything possible to ensure that it meets those transparency requirements. Officials are aware of them and officials are reminded of them. I recognise the vital importance of transparency, not least for building trust, which she mentioned last time in her question, but in allowing her, the NAO and other Members of this House to do their job, quite rightly, in scrutinising and challenging those contracts and Government decisions, where appropriate.

John Redwood: I am quite sure that Ministers want these contracts published, and I look forward to the remaining publications. Will the Minister confirm that in the emergency phase, when it was just desperate to get hold of PPE, all those contracts  were negotiated and vetted by independent professional civil servants, and it was not a case of friends of Ministers?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am happy to say he is absolutely right. He has a lot of experience in government and in this space. All those contracts and all assessments of contracts, whichever route they came via, went through the eight-stage process of assessment by independent civil servants who know commerce and know procurement. I would not for a moment cast aspersions on their judgment, and Ministers did not determine which contracts were or were not awarded in that context.

Munira Wilson: Given the number of fast-track VIP covid contracts that have resulted in unusable protective equipment, will the Minister commit to recovering public money from the companies that did not meet their contractual obligations? Does he agree that those hundreds of millions of pounds might have been better spent on a decent pay rise for the NHS workforce?

Edward Argar: The hon. Lady makes an important point about contracts that either failed to deliver or where PPE, for example, did not meet the required standards. I can reassure her that we are undertaking a stocktake—an audit—of exactly that, and we are already pursuing a number of cases where, if PPE was either not to the required standard or was not delivered, we will recoup the money from that.

Gagan Mohindra: The Court’s judgment focused solely on the publication of contract notices. It did not make any judgment on the contracting process or on any of the individual processes in any way. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are wrong to play politics and to misrepresent the Court’s opinion in this way?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend highlights something important, which is what the Court actually did and did not consider. It considered, quite rightly, whether the Government met the simple binary of publishing the notices within the required timeframe, and found that they did not. It did, however, find against the claimants and in favour of the Government that there was no policy of deprioritising transparency and publication requirements. As he says, the Court did not make any judgment on the appropriateness of the awards or the process followed for those awards.

Jim Shannon: I know the Minister to be a person of integrity and openness; indeed, this is an opportunity for the Government to show that.. Would the Minister once again outline the intention for timely competition in line with the comprehensive judicial review judgment? Does the Minister have any update on any moneys that the Government have been able to recoup from contracts for things that were unusable or incorrect?

Edward Argar: I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance I have given to other hon. Members. We recognise entirely the importance of transparency. We will comply fully with the Court judgment—the Court order—and, going forward, we will comply with the   requirements on transparency. To his specific point, I have alluded to the stocktake—the audit—that we are doing to make sure that if anything was not delivered or was faulty, we can recoup the money for it. I would say more broadly that the Department has cancelled or curtailed contracts up to the value of around £400 million so far—I believe that was in the evidence given by the second permanent secretary at the Department to the Public Accounts Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—and I hasten to add that cancellation of those contracts has occurred for a multitude of reasons not necessarily representative of faulty or inadequate PPE. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) an indication of the work the Government are doing to ensure value for money.

Suzanne Webb: Is it not important to remember that over the course of this pandemic we have created the largest diagnostic network in British history, delivering around 90 million tests and contacting over 9 million people who would otherwise have spread the virus? Does my hon. Friend agree that our ability to set up this network is a testament to the hard work and dedication of our frontline health and care workers?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this amazing achievement. It reflects on the phenomenal effort of our frontline health and care workers, but also more broadly on the partnership we have seen at work in this country over the past year between the public sector, the private sector, the voluntary and charitable sector and ordinary members of the public all working together in a joint effort to beat this disease. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that.

Debbie Abrahams: As much as I have a high personal regard for the Minister, he is incorrect in his remarks. The High Court ruling last Friday made it absolutely clear that at the time of the Prime Minister’s response to hon. and right hon. Members in this House last month 100 contracts had not been published; they were outstanding. Whether intentional or not, the Prime Minister—[Inaudible]—was factually untrue; he needs to come to this place with a full apology, as warranted by the ministerial code.

Edward Argar: I lost a few words of the hon. Lady’s question, but I think I know what she was asking about in respect of the Prime Minister’s remarks on 22 February. May I start by saying that her kind words at the start of her contribution are reciprocated? I have known her since I came to this House and I have the highest regard for her as well; so I am grateful for her kind words.
In terms of the specifics the hon. Lady asked about in respect of the Court judgment and the Prime Minister, as I understand it on the date the Prime Minister spoke 100% of the contract awards notices—the details of the contracts are contained within them—were published, and that, I believe, is what my right hon. Friend was referring to.

Liz Twist: Our NHS staff have made huge sacrifices during this pandemic and done all they can to support patients and their families, and now  they are delivering a successful roll-out of the vaccine. Does the Minister think it is fair for millions, in some cases billions, of pounds to be spent on contracts that do not deliver but to deny those same NHS staff the decent pay rise they need and deserve?

Edward Argar: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. She is right to highlight the amazing work being done in the roll-out of the vaccine by our frontline health and social care workers, and indeed many others, and I join her in paying tribute to them. What is important is that we worked flat out, as did senior officials, to make sure that the NHS and the frontline got what they needed last year: PPE to help keep them safe. I have to say to the hon. Lady that I hear the point she makes, but I make no apology for the efforts made by the Government to get the PPE in the quantities needed to keep our front- line safe.

Selaine Saxby: The British people want us to focus on fighting this virus so we can protect our NHS as we roll out the vaccine and save lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the political sniping the Opposition are engaging in is the exact opposite of what people expect and want to see politicians doing?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who alludes to the fact that our constituents and the wider public want to see all of us in this House and in Government doing everything we can to ensure, as in the context of last year’s procurement of PPE at the height of the pandemic, that the frontline gets what it needs to keep it safe. Transparency is of course hugely important, but this is not an either/or, and the focus had to be on getting that PPE to frontline. My hon. Friend’s point is absolutely right.

Martin Docherty: I believe in restorative justice, which requires the offender—that is the Government—to accept responsibility for the harm it has caused to the principles of contractual openness and transparency. Can the Minister therefore advise the House whether the Government—the offender in this case—accept responsibility for the judgment handed down by a court of law?

Edward Argar: I have been clear, both today and, indeed, when I came to the House two weeks ago, that the Government fully accept and respect the judgment of the court.

Robert Halfon: I recognise that the Government have had to take urgent decisions when it comes to some of these contracts, especially when securing PPE at the height of the pandemic, but will the Minister ensure that any new UK health contracts are not agreed or signed unless the business concerned employs a significant amount of apprentices—preferably higher than the public sector target of 2.3%—as part of its workforce?

Edward Argar: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for that question. I started out in Government as his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was the apprenticeships Minister, and that is something that he has taken a huge and passionate interest in throughout his time in the House. I am sure that colleagues in the Cabinet Office responsible for Government procurement  across the piece will be very happy to have a conversation with him about the point that he has just made as to how greater use of apprenticeships can be baked into procurement decisions.

Hywel Williams: Initially, the Welsh Government anticipated a UK-wide approach to buying PPE; they then took responsibility for their own procurement, but they have still worked with this Government when the opportunity has arisen. Therefore, did the Secretary of State seek the agreement of the Welsh Labour Government before awarding any relevant contracts without competitive tendering or transparency, and did the Welsh Government themselves raise any concerns about the lack of competition on their own initiative?

Edward Argar: My understanding is that the procurement process for PPE, as the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights, was a UK procurement process. As he will have seen, we invoked regulation 32, recognising the speed needed to meet the demand for PPE in the frontline, and throughout this process we worked at pace to ensure that the focus was on the procurement of the PPE required. Throughout this process—throughout this pandemic—we have worked closely with the Welsh Government.

Edward Leigh: In the middle of an emergency, value for money goes out of the window, and I am sure that terrible mistakes were made in the tendering process, but on the central charge that contracts were awarded to cronies, I am mystified why that should have taken place if civil servants and not Ministers took the decision. Does my hon. Friend accept that the best way to resolve these issues is to take them out of party politics and let the National Audit Office get on with its job? No doubt in time, the Public Accounts Committee will issue coruscating reports that are very wise with the benefit of hindsight.

Edward Argar: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that the decisions, as I touched on and as the PAC was told, were made following an eight-stage process run by civil servants and not Ministers. He is also right that there has been no evidence found, either by Committees of this House or the NAO, or indeed in any court cases, of any inappropriate involvement in terms of conflict of interest by Ministers. On his final point, he is absolutely right, and I know that going forward, as we always do, the Government will look to co-operate fully with the NAO in seeking to supply all and any information that it seeks, so that it can form its judgments and inform the PAC and the House of them.

Rachel Hopkins: Back in December, in the public interest, not just playing politics or sniping, I and other MPs highlighted cronyism and waste in the Government’s pandemic procurement. Three months on from that Westminster Hall debate, does the Minister agree that responding then, by increasing transparency reporting on those companies that won £1.7 billion-worth of contracts via the Government’s VIP fast lane and were 10 times more likely to receive a contract, would have been better than waiting to be taken to court?

Edward Argar: In respect of the appropriateness of contract awards and whether there are any conflicts of interest, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I just  gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The hon. Lady talked about last December and the debate, I think, in Westminster Hall—although I could be wrong on that—where this was discussed, and I point her to the lines used by the judge in his judgment:
“The evidence as a whole suggests that the backlog arose largely in the first few months of the pandemic and that officials began to bear down on it during the autumn of 2020.”
At the time that she was speaking of—in December—the judge acknowledged that the Department and the Government were working at pace to meet their transparency requirements, so that was already being done.

Craig Whittaker: In the teeth of the global pandemic and facing unprecedented global demand for vital supplies, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s ability to secure over 32 billion items of PPE— including many items supplied from businesses in the Calder Valley and Leeds West, all stepping up to the plate—is a testament to the hard work and ingenuity of British businesses and should be celebrated?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. He is right to highlight the amazing effort by British business and by businesses that stepped up in this country’s hour of need to repurpose their production lines and to source PPE. Indeed, I would include in that the work of my officials and officials in the Cabinet Office to make sure that it was bought and procured and that it got to the frontline. To cite one statistic that alludes to exactly what he is saying, we have moved from 1% of this country’s needed PPE being produced in this country to 70%, and that is testament to the amazing ingenuity and hard work of British business.

Andrew Slaughter: Yesterday, the Minister’s Department answered a named day question that I tabled on 1 December 2020 about some of its multimillion- pound contracts with management consultants. The Government either have something to hide or they are staggeringly incompetent, so will the Minister see that I get answers to the further questions on consultants tabled on 19 January? And will the Government now support my Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill, which they blocked back in 2017 and which would make private companies winning public contracts subject to the Freedom of Information Act?

Edward Argar: The hon. Gentleman made two points. On the latter, the Government will always look very carefully at anything he suggests to them. On the former, very serious point, if he is able to let me know, after this session in the House, the written parliamentary question numbers, I will endeavour to have them looked at and a response expedited for him.

Bob Stewart: Crisis situations such as the present pandemic often require action, not paper, and the ends can justify the means. Does the Minister agree that sending PPE out to users was the Government’s top priority and getting right the supporting paperwork, which can be filed later, should not jeopardise that speed of delivery?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend for his question. He is absolutely right to highlight that our No. 1 priority, as I think the people of  this country and Members of this House would expect, was, in the face of an unprecedented demand for PPE, that this Government did everything that they could to massively ramp up the supplies of PPE that were available and to get them to the frontline. Of course, transparency is hugely important and the court did find that there was no policy to deprioritise compliance with transparency regulations and requirements. However, he is absolutely right to highlight that the absolute priority must be to get the kit to save lives.

Zarah Sultana: It has been revealed that almost £2 billion has been handed to Conservative party friends and donors in dodgy covid contracts. That includes the likes of Steve Parkin, who has donated over £500,000 to the Conservatives. He is the chairman of Clipper Logistics, which was awarded a £1.3 million PPE contract. Another Tory donor, David Meller, has given £65,000 to the Tories over the past decade. His company, Meller Designs, was awarded PPE contracts worth over £150 million. Those people did not get rich giving their money away for nothing, so does the Minister believe that it is appropriate for the Conservative Government to hand out fortunes—public money—to Conservative party donors?

Edward Argar: I refer the hon. Lady, once again, to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I also highlight that, to the best of my recollection, no court and no Committee of this House has found any evidence of inappropriate conflicts of interest or inappropriate involvement by Ministers in the award of contracts. What I would say to her in conclusion is that what matters here is whether companies supply what is needed to standard. I pay tribute to all companies who came on board, stepped up and did what was necessary to help us get the kit we needed to protect those on the frontline.

Scott Benton: The vast majority of people in Blackpool can understand the exceptional circumstances which led to this paperwork being submitted slightly late. How many people does my hon. Friend estimate came to direct harm because of a late submission of that paperwork, as opposed to those people who would have come to direct harm had PPE and medical supplies been delivered late?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend makes an important point in his usual very forthright and clear way. The priority for this Government and for those working for them was to get the PPE needed in the quantities needed to be able to get it to the frontline to save lives. Transparency is important, of course it is. I recognise that and that is why we have worked since that time to get everything up to date in terms of transparency. But I make no apologies for the amazing effort that the Government and, most importantly, those working for them—the civil servants who did this work—put in to get the PPE in the quantities we needed.

Peter Grant: Despite the Minister’s protestations and despite the huge amount of money that was spent, the fact is that for those working in the social care part of health and social care, the equipment did not get anywhere near the frontline  anywhere like on time. I think the Minister is maybe glossing over the fact that, although supplies to the health service seemed to have been okay, supplies to the social care sector were desperately inadequate. A Public Accounts Committee report, endorsed by its members, a majority of whom are Government supporters, found that the Department had wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on equipment that was of poor quality and could not be used. We were also told by the Cabinet Office that it did not know how many contracts had essentially been approved after the work had started and how many contractors were only checked out for suitability after they had been given their contracts. Does the Minister not understand that all of that taken together creates a bad smell? Does he agree that the best way to get rid of that bad smell is to have everything published, including assessments of conflicts of interest and information that in normal circumstances might be termed or deemed to be commercially confidential? Does he not understand that confidence in public procurement by the British Government—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Edward Argar: I will endeavour to give a short answer to a long question. Two key points there. The hon. Gentleman mentions social care and he is right to do that. The focus of some of the questioning has been around the frontline in the NHS, but he is absolutely right to talk about social care. That is why we went from a supply chain where we were supplying PPE to 226 NHS trusts in England to 58,000 organisations. Historically, social care settings had procured their own PPE on the open market. We recognised the pressures on that market—price pressures and demand pressures—which was why we expanded the supply chain to ensure that 58,000 settings ended up being able to access it.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, very briefly, he talks about money spent on contracts where they were either not fulfilled or did not meet the relevant quality criteria. I have already set out to the House the steps the Government are taking to review and audit those, and we will recoup money where appropriate to do so.

Michael Fabricant: Mr Speaker, do you recall photographs, back in the dark days of March, April and May last year, of nurses wearing bin liners, photographs taken in Spain, Italy and the United States? In fact, if I had not been banned from having a backdrop of Lichfield cathedral on Zoom, I could actually pop up those photographs from The New York Times. Does my hon. Friend the Minister not agree with me that the priority must be for the delivery of the PPE, and that these rather unpleasant Labour slurs actually do no good at all?

Edward Argar: It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend, and I hope it will not be too long before we see him in person in the House again. He is absolutely right to highlight the overall priority as being to get the PPE to the frontline. He highlights clearly the situation we were seeing on our televisions every day—for example, the real challenges at hospitals in Bergamo and elsewhere. That was the context at that time in Europe, and we moved heaven and earth to try to get the PPE needed in time. We did not run out of PPE in this country, but it would be fair to say that there were shortages in particular situations. These were met by the Government through  the national shortage response. It was in that context that we had to do everything we possibly could, and I pay tribute to the officials who did it to procure PPE in bulk in an incredibly overheated and challenging global market.

Jeff Smith: The Minister rightly said that transparency mattered, so when will the Government publish the full details and criteria of how businesses got into the fast lane?

Edward Argar: As I alluded to on the previous occasion I came to this House to answer questions on this matter, we set out that some contracts were put forward by Members of this House and by Members of the other place and were assessed through the fast-track priority lane, but there was no difference in the approach taken—the eight stages that all those contracts had to pass through to be awarded. They were all assessed independently by civil servants, so they all went through the same process, and those contracts that were awarded and that met the rules for the contract award notices publication will be published, and have been published, under the CAN regulations and on the website.

Alexander Stafford: At the start of the pandemic, just 1% of PPE in the UK was made here in this country. Now, 70% of it is made in the UK, which is a huge achievement. Does my hon. Friend agree that our rapid response to procuring and delivering PPE to frontline workers has been essential in keeping them and others safe? Will he work even harder to increase the percentage so that even more PPE is made in the UK, perhaps by focusing on areas with a textile heritage such as Thurcroft and Dinnington here in Rother Valley?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For our businesses to go from a capacity to produce this country’s PPE of 1% to 70% is an incredible achievement, but we must not rest on our laurels. We must continue to work with British business to allow it to continue to innovate and develop its ability to meet UK need. I pay tribute to the businesses in his constituency of Rother Valley for the work they did in helping out this country when it needed it most.

Matt Western: The simple truth is that businesses up and down the country feel as though they were misled by the Government. They were encouraged to get behind the PPE challenge, and they made capital investments to expand their capacity to manufacture, yet we know that Government middlemen mates were 10 times more likely than they were to win contracts. So can the Minister set out when he will publish the details of all the contracts, including when the principal businesses were established and what the duration of the contracts are?

Edward Argar: The Government will meet their legal obligations to publish contracts under regulation 50 and the requirements that that places on us for the information that needs to be published. Those that meet the criteria for a CAN—a contract award notice—under that, and that have been awarded by the Department of Health and Social Care directly, have been published. All contracts will be published—all details under CANs will be published—where that is required by the regulation,  and the information specified as to what is published in a CAN notice is of a standard format. We will continue to meet that obligation.

Mike Wood: Does my hon. Friend accept the finding of the independent National Audit Office that no health trust in the UK went without the PPE it needed, in contrast with many other countries? My constituents rightly expect transparency in procurement, but most would never want pursuing paperwork to be prioritised over providing proper protective equipment.

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people of this country would expect the Government’s No. 1 priority in March, April and May of last year to have been, as it was, to move heaven and earth to get the PPE that was needed in a very challenging environment to the frontline. I think that what he was alluding to in the NAO report was paragraph 18 of the summary, which said:
“The NHS provider organisations we spoke to told us that, while they were concerned about the low stocks of PPE, they were always able to get what they needed in time.”
That is not necessarily an NAO conclusion, but it is a reflection of what it was told and cited in this report, so he is right to highlight it.

Marion Fellows: The Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), which would require Ministers to answer questions in Parliament about any personal, political or financial connections they have to companies given government contracts, will now go forward to a Second Reading. I hope the Government will support it, as this Bill should help with the Government’s present court and publication difficulties. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial that we get greater scrutiny and have stringent regulations in order to increase transparency on the issuing of Government contracts and to ensure that the right people or companies are getting those contracts during these difficult times?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have highlighted just how important I consider transparency to be. This is the second time in two weeks, rightly, that I have been answering at the Dispatch Box, so I would argue that there is scrutiny there. On her final point about that private Member’s Bill, I know that the Government will look at that Bill as they would look at any private Member’s Bill, in the usual way.

Kim Johnson: Nurses have seen us through this crisis and they have been putting their lives on the line every day, yet the Prime Minister has offered them only a derogatory 1% pay rise but handed out billions to private companies that did not provide what was needed and to standard—I remind Members of the 400,000 substandard gowns from Turkey. Does the Minister agree that it is a kick in the teeth that this Govt have chosen to waste £37 billion by giving it to Serco for a failed track and trace system while denying our incredible nurses the pay rise they deserve?

Edward Argar: What this Government have done, and did in the context of the issues under discussion in this specific question, is recognise the huge need for PPE during the pandemic last year and take every step  they could to meet that need. They secured a large number of contracts, which delivered 8.8 billion pieces of PPE to date. I think that is called delivering.

Peter Gibson: More than 70% of PPE is now made in the UK, whereas it was less than 1% before the pandemic. When that is coupled with the expansion of more than 22,000 ventilators, we see that this Government have done an incredible job. Does my hon. Friend agree that the petty point-scoring of the Labour party is not what we need at this time of national emergency?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have set out in my answers that what I think is most important for this country is that we work together— the public, private and voluntary sectors, and the Great British public—as we did, in this context. We have pulled together and done everything we can, including, as he alludes to, building that capacity for UK businesses to meet more of our need for PPE. That is a great success for those businesses and I pay tribute to them.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is adorable, but I am not falling for that old trick. The truth of the matter is that the Government did not even get PPE out fast enough to people who really needed it, especially in our care homes, which is why so many people died and we have the highest excess death rate of any country in the world. So I am not taking any of this nonsense about how, “We had to focus on that, which meant we could not deal with transparency.” The truth is that they set up a VIP track for some people to be able to get massive contracts, and some people enriched themselves phenomenally during this pandemic, many of whom, surprise, surprise, happen to be Conservative party donors. I have to say that it looks like corruption, and the only way the Government can wipe that slate clean is if they come clean with all the contracts. Otherwise, it just looks like a cover-up.

Edward Argar: I will take the hon. Gentleman’s first comment as a compliment, I think, from a colleague I know well. Having said that, I do not recognise his characterisation of what happened. He is right that challenges were faced not just in frontline NHS situations, but in social care. He is absolutely right to highlight that, and I alluded to it earlier, and that is why we increased the number of organisations that we were able to supply centrally from 226 to 58,000. That is why we massively ramped up the purchases of PPE and the stocks of PPE that were available to get to the frontline to ensure that staff could access what they needed to keep them safe. He mentions the assessments of the contracts and how they were awarded. I merely take him back, very gently, to the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), which is that these contracts, as set out to the Public Accounts Committee, went through an eight-stage assessment process undertaken by civil servants. I know the hon. Gentleman well, that he would not be impugning the integrity of those civil servants and that he has great respect for them. But I say very gently that there has been no evidence cited and no findings in court of any Minister in terms of conflicts of interest or having behaved inappropriately.

Jacob Young: Throughout the pandemic, the Government, the NHS and the armed forces have focused on saving as many lives as possible, while the Labour party has focused on this sort of hindsight and political games. Saving lives meant securing as much PPE as possible as fast as possible, so can my hon. Friend confirm that all those PPE contract notices that faced a short delay in publication are now in the public domain?

Edward Argar: I can confirm that the contract award notices for the contracts here, the PPE contracts, awarded directly by the Department are now in the public domain.

Deidre Brock: Will the Minister tell us: how much was paid out under the contracts in advance of delivery; how much has actually been clawed back for services or products not delivered; and how much are the Government still to pursue in repayments?

Edward Argar: As part of the answer to her question, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In response to the rest of her question, the honest answer is that we are undertaking a stocktake and an audit. It is that which is required to assess whether any stockpiles are not fit for purpose or do not meet requirements, or to check what was and was not delivered and make sure that every order was fully fulfilled. We have been very clear that, as part of that audit, that stocktake, we will pursue with any who did not meet the requirements or did not supply the goods the recouping of that money for the public purse.

Bob Blackman: Last year, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote:
“We need Government to strain every sinew and utilise untapped resources in UK manufacturing, to deliver essential equipment to frontline workers. This must be a national effort which leaves no stone unturned.”
Can my hon. Friend say that the Government have done what she wanted and have delivered for the people of this country?

Edward Argar: I would argue that that is exactly what the Government have done. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and I do not always agree, but I agreed with her then and I agree with what she wrote then now.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Bills presented

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to make provision increasing the maximum capital of the Contingencies Fund for a temporary period.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 267) with explanatory notes (Bill 267-EN).

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Robert Buckland, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Oliver Dowden, the Attorney General, Victoria Atkins and Chris Philp, presented a Bill to make provision about the police and other emergency workers; to make provision about collaboration between authorities to prevent and reduce serious violence; to make provision about offensive weapons homicide reviews; to make provision for new offences and for the modification of existing offences; to make provision about the powers of the police and other authorities for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime or investigating other matters; to make provision about the maintenance of public order; to make provision about the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles; to make provision in connection with driving offences; to make provision about cautions; to make provision about bail and remand; to make provision about sentencing, detention, release, management and rehabilitation of offenders; to make provision about secure 16 to 19 Academies; to make provision for and in connection with procedures before courts and tribunals; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 268) with explanatory notes (Bill 268-EN).

Landfill Sites (Odorous Emissions)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Aaron Bell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a presumption against planning applications for new landfill sites liable to cause odorous emissions in built-up areas; to set limits for odorous emissions from landfill sites; to make provision for the payment of compensation by site operators to local residents when emissions exceed those limits; and for connected purposes.
Perhaps it would have been simpler for me to say, “That leave be given to bring in a Bill to stop the stink”, because this Bill is being introduced against the backdrop of a major ongoing environmental incident in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme that is affecting thousands of residents. It has been really bad for months, but on 26 February it became intolerable. The problem, in essence, is that the landfill in my constituency—Walley’s quarry—is once again, frankly, stinking. I am told that the Environment Agency’s hotline for reporting was completely overwhelmed by complaints, with residents unable to get through. Extra staff were brought in to deal with the number of calls. The EA logged 1,300 odour complaints in that one weekend. For context, in a typical month, it would log 1,600 such complaints across the whole country.
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council received more than 2,000 individual reports of odour over the same weekend. There were reports from Keele University and, most upsettingly, from the Royal Stoke University Hospital, which has many coronavirus and cancer patients, and a substantial maternity unit. The hospital complained to the borough council that the odour from the landfill had got into its ventilation systems, affecting hundreds of staff and patients. Residents also stated on social media that they had broken covid rules to get away from the smell and stay with relatives.
The weekend just past was nearly as bad. I went out and about conducting live odour reports in Newcastle on Saturday night, and I can tell everyone here that it was appalling. On that occasion, it was particularly to the south-east of the site on the Poolfields estate, but at other times it is communities such as Silverdale, Knutton, Cross Heath, Keele, Thistleberry, Clayton and the Westlands that bear the brunt of the odour. This landfill causes a great deal of anxiety and distress for those affected. It goes well beyond simple annoyance; it has a significant impact on people’s quality of life and, I fear, on their mental health.
Yesterday morning, I visited St Giles’ and St George’s Church of England Academy Primary School on Orme Road. Children had written to me, and the headteacher, Mrs Pointon, had written to the local paper. She has often arrived at school to an overwhelming odour in the building, and has had to empty the building of it before she can let the children in. I have had similar reports from many other schools, pre-schools and nurseries in the area. One resident reported on social media that their house sale fell through on 27 February as a result of the odour scaring away their buyers; another, whom I spoke to on Saturday night, had to cut their asking price by £30,000.
Problems arising from this site have been reported on and off for many years, since it began operating in 2007, but it has been striking how much worse the odour has been—in terms of intensity and the distance from the site from which it can be smelled—in the last 12 months, with a particular change since Christmas. Local campaigners have been raising this issue over a number of years, including Derrick Huckfield, who asked me about it at my selection meeting, and who has convened many meetings with affected parties, residents and the Environment Agency. More recently, local residents Graham Eagles and Steve Meakin established a local “Stop the Stink” group and Facebook page. We have seen protests outside the site instigated by local residents. Recently, another very active Facebook group calling for the landfill to be capped off has reached more than 6,000 local members in the three months since it was set up. There have also been more than 11,000 signatures on an online petition calling for the landfill site to be closed.
All that is representative of the strength of feeling that I have encountered as the MP. It is also comfortably the biggest issue that I receive correspondence about in my mailbox. Since Christmas, the number of emails I have been receiving has nearly overwhelmed my team of staff, such is the strength of feeling and the number of incidents.
The local council, under the leadership of Simon Tagg and Stephen Sweeney, is doing everything it can within the constraints of the law, but the responsible body for the landfill is the Environment Agency. I believe it needs to step up, win back the trust of my residents and start forcing a solution to this issue.
This crisis is tragic in the context of what should be a time of great optimism in Newcastle-under-Lyme. We will be doing a huge amount of good in Newcastle through more than £30 million of Government funds from the future high streets fund and the towns fund, but our odour catastrophe is threatening to overshadow all that—it is literally casting a cloud. Who would want to eat out on the high street when we get our hospitality reopened if there is an almighty stink in the air? We are getting levelling up in Newcastle, but we need capping off too.
Walley’s quarry landfill quite simply should never have been permitted to exist. It is a former quarry that was obviously converted to landfill use. At all local levels, the application for the landfill site was opposed due to the inappropriate nature of its location. It is in a built-up area surrounded by housing in several directions, but the councils were overruled by the Secretary of State at the time, John Prescott.
The Environment Agency agrees that the site is in a particularly unusual location, close to a number of long-established properties that surround the landfill, belonging to people who have lived in their villages and communities all their lives. Nevertheless, it seems apparent from consulting with other right hon. and hon. Members that there are plenty of other landfills in inappropriate locations around the country causing similar distress—indeed, outrage—to their communities. I have spoken to my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for High Peak (Robert Largan), for North Wiltshire (James Gray), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan),  and, on the other side of the House, the hon. Members for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), for Bristol North West (Darren Jones)—I see he is in his place—and for Blaydon (Liz Twist). The right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle) has also had a major issue with his landfill. He seems to have got it capped off a bit earlier, so perhaps I need to take some tips about tips from Mr Speaker.
Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs acknowledged that landfill should not routinely be causing annoyance, that is essentially impossible to avoid when a landfill is 100 metres from your home. That is a problem that my Bill attempts to tackle. My Bill would introduce a presumption against planning permission for a landfill within 500 metres of a built-up area to prevent the problems that we have seen in Newcastle-under-Lyme from happening elsewhere. Of course, I am aware that odour reaches far further than 500 metres. At the weekend, there were reports from Red Street, Bradwell and Halmer End in my constituency, which are more like 5,000 metres away, but a 500-metre presumption would rule out a lot of unsuitable sites, such as Walley’s.
Difficult decisions need to be made because clearly placing landfill sites in beauty spots or national parks will not be acceptable either. A major part of the national solution is for us to continue to use more sustainable materials and recycle more. The Government’s landmark Environment Bill has an ambitious resources and waste strategy, which can be summed up by an eco-friendly version of the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. The planning laws permitting new housing to be built in the vicinity of landfills also need to be looked at. We need houses for the future, but it seems counter- productive to be building them in areas with known air-quality issues.
The second major aspect of my Bill would be to introduce new tougher limits for odorous emissions from landfill sites, going beyond the current guidance. The Environment Agency, as the regulator for the site, is aware of the problem in my constituency and how it affects my constituents because it receives their complaints, but to date it has been unable to act much beyond air quality monitoring exercises in the area, despite the misery of thousands of surrounding residents, at times across my borough and into Stoke-on-Trent. That is because the Environment Agency uses the World Health Organisation’s limits for hydrogen sulphide as its criteria for enforcement action. That utterly fails to take account of the severe annoyance of odour at levels not considered harmful to physical health.
The WHO’s guidelines for human health are averaged over 24 hours and refer to 150 micrograms per cubic metre. Happily, nothing that high has been recorded in Newcastle-under-Lyme—in the last exercise, we reached a peak of 44.5—but the annoyance measure, which is averaged over 30 minutes, is only 7 micrograms per cubic metre. My Bill would reduce the annoyance test for hydrogen sulphide emissions to half that level, equipping the Environment Agency to take earlier action against sites causing that level of disturbance in their communities.
In a nation such as the UK, we should be aspiring to higher, better limits on odour than the bare minimum prescribed by the WHO. That change would go hand in hand with a new framework for compensation where the limit is exceeded. The point of this aspect of my Bill is not that residents want to be paid off. In my experience,  most residents do not want compensation—they just want the stink to stop. This aspect of my Bill is intended to provide a clear incentive to operators to take all practical measures to reduce odour and to be good and responsible neighbours.
We also need to get into the 21st century and stop relying on a human sniff test, conducted on a nought to six scale, which always has an attendant delay while an EA operative gets to the site in question. Because the odour can be quite transient, they often miss the true scale of the problem. Odorous landfill sites should be ringed by a network of permanent hydrogen sulphide monitors that should be capable of providing real-time data to a web feed, a bit like a weather report, so that residents can feel confident that their experience is being recorded in real time against a standardised measure.
It seems clear to me that our communities need to have their voices heard much more loudly where landfills are causing persistent problems. My Bill would strengthen their rights and give the EA a much stronger hand in dealing with problems when they arise. Although the Bill, if passed, would not necessarily solve my constituents’ problem with Walley’s Quarry once and for all, it would prevent similar problems from occurring for other communities, a goal that I hope we can all agree is well worth pursuing.

Nigel Evans: I have had no indication that anyone intends to oppose this ten-minute rule Bill motion, and I see no one, so I intend to put the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Aaron Bell, Simon Baynes, Jack Brereton, Sir William Cash, Jo Gideon, James Gray, Jonathan Gullis, Robert Halfon, Darren Jones, Marco Longhi, Alexander Stafford and Liz Twist present the Bill.
Aaron Bell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 269).

Ways and Means - Budget Resolutions and Economic SituationWays and Means

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate resumed (Order, 8 March).
Question again proposed,
That income tax is charged for the tax year 2021-22.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that I have not selected the amendments in the names of the Leader of the Opposition or John McDonnell.
Before I call the Minister to open the debate, I have had notice of a point of order. I call Mr David Davis.

David Davis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Budgets and Finance Bills were the first reason for having a Parliament —to approve the expenditures of the Executive. For more than a century, the first resolution for a Finance Bill has been what is known as the general amendment of the law resolution. The resolution allows Members to table amendments that deal with tax administration and relief provisions not otherwise provided for by the specific Ways and Means resolution.
However, since Philip Hammond’s Finance Bill 2017, the Government have not included such a resolution. The effect is that any amendments tabled by Members to the Finance Bill must be tied to one of the specific resolutions already agreed by the House. In effect, by not including the amendment of the law resolution, the Government have shut down the rights that the House has enjoyed for more than 100 years. The result is that Members’ hands are tied when it comes to effectively amending the Finance Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you give guidance as to how the House can recover those fundamental rights, which have been arrogated by the Government?

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. There is no matter of order for the Chair arising from the absence of an amendment of the law motion. There was no such motion after the last three Budgets and I think I remember, during the last Budget, a very similar if not identical point of order from the right hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of tradition around Budgets, and it may well be that the David Davis point of order becomes part of that tradition. Anyway, it has no effect on the scope of debate—the reasons for and implications of the absence of an amendment of the law resolution are themselves a proper matter for debate. The right hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.
Before I call the Minister, I point out that up until and including No. 6, Darren Jones, on the call list, Back-Bench contributions will have a five-minute time limit. Thereafter—No. 7 onwards—the limit will be reduced to three minutes. For those who are contributing remotely, please look at the timer on the bottom right-hand  corner of the device that you are using. If, for whatever reason, you do not have sight of that, please use an alternative way of ensuring that you keep within the time limit that has been set. Please do not be tempted to try to extend it, because we have 101 contributions to this debate. For those who are taking part in the Chamber, the timer will be displayed as usual on the monitors in the Chamber.

Kwasi Kwarteng: It is a real pleasure for me to open today’s debate on the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer brought before the House last week. It is a Budget that meets the needs of the moment. It delivers support to all corners of our United Kingdom. It shores up our defences against the ravaging impact of the pandemic while laying a clear path for our journey out of the crisis and into a brighter future. As the Chancellor himself acknowledged last week, it is a path that we are only able to take because of the incredible efforts of our frontline health workers who have vaccinated more than 20 million people across the United Kingdom, and the researchers and manufacturers who have managed to produce effective vaccines in such a short space of time. I am sure I speak on behalf of the entire House when I express the deepest gratitude to everyone involved in this heroic national effort.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes some very important points about our health staff and the vaccination programme, which has been absolutely superb in this country. Does he recognise that the creation of a new vaccine centre and medicines manufacturing centre were part of the life sciences deals that were enabled by the modern industrial strategy? Will he welcome the modern industrial strategy?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I have not come here to defend or rebut any of the wonderful measures that we took under my right hon. Friend’s leadership. I am very conscious of the fact that many people want to take part in this debate, and I am afraid that I have to press on.
The researchers and manufacturers have done an extremely good job, as my right hon. Friend says, in shoring up our response to the crisis. The Budget provides an additional £65 billion of measures in response to covid, designed to support the economy this year. It covers an extension of the furlough scheme, which has already supported 1.3 million employers and more than 11 million jobs, providing vital funds to households and communities throughout our country. It has added to the near £20 billion of support that the Treasury has paid out to support 2.7 million self-employed people.
The Budget presents a dynamic and generous plan to help businesses to get up to speed. We are providing restart grants of up to £18,000 to more than 680,000 business premises. We are also providing further support for hospitality and retail businesses who may be more affected by restrictions when they reopen. While our plan for jobs has been given a £126 million boost supporting 40,000 more traineeships and doubling the cash incentive for firms taking on new apprentices, the Budget ensures that more people are able to access secure, skilled work.
Of course, there can be no denial that the jobs market has changed profoundly over the past year.

Greg Clark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am very conscious, as I am sure my right hon. Friend I, that many, many Back Benchers want to take part in the debate. I understand that he is on the call list, so I am afraid I am going to have to make more progress.
It is no secret that over the years, and even in years of strong growth, prosperity has not been spread fairly between the regions and nations that make up our United Kingdom. That is an imbalance that this Budget seeks to correct, with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy leading the charge. Where regions have been left behind by the decline of old industries, we will create new industries and support sectors as they transition to a low-carbon, sustainable and competitive future.

Greg Clark: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I must press on. Lots of Back Benchers want to speak. However eminent and distinguished my right hon. Friend is, there are lots of other people who want to speak.
We are backing the development of hydrogen hubs in the Tees Valley and Holyhead, to breathe new life into coastal and post-industrial communities while we drive a new clean energy transition. We are establishing four carbon capture and storage clusters across the next two decades, and we hope that they will play their part in decarbonising our industrial processes. We are investing tens of millions of pounds in the Aberdeen energy transition zone and the global underwater hub.
We are providing a support package of more than £2 billion to Britain’s incredible auto industry, with £500 million going towards the growth of our electric vehicle supply chain. That package will help to support and safeguard nearly 170,000 jobs in the UK auto sector, including in the north of England, the west midlands and Wales. We intend fully to deliver a boost to the ambition to build at least one UK gigafactory before the end of this Parliament, and we hope to secure investment for others in the longer term.

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and successor for giving way. Will he acknowledge that the battery manufacturing innovation centre and the Faraday challenge, which galvanised the move to providing batteries for electric vehicles, were part of the industrial strategy, as was vaccine manufacturing? Can he explain why it is thought appropriate to abolish that strategy? Is it not better to have a plan, rather than no plan?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I hear my right hon. Friend’s passionate defence of his own work, and I commend a lot of his work. I have read the industrial strategy comprehensively, and it was a pudding without a theme, in my view. I feel very strongly that the conditions of 2017 do not apply to 2021, and I am very pleased to announce to the House that we are morphing and changing the industrial strategy into the plan for growth. I am happy to take further interventions on that, should they arise.
What we have announced in these packages is levelling up in action. There will be new investment in new industries, creating new jobs and driving real change in communities across the UK. With these examples, we are talking about a vision for the future of the kind of country we want to be: a country that hosts good-quality, high-skilled, long-term jobs in every community and that takes its commitment to net zero extremely seriously. I would like to commend the work of my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) in passing the net zero legislation in 2019. That was a signal piece of legislation for which I commend them heartily. As Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—which is still the name of the Department—I am very pleased that we are committed to net zero in the way that we are.
Because of all the profound changes that we have seen over the last three or four years, as well as our departure from the EU, our legislation to end our contribution to climate change by 2050 and the unprecedented impact of the coronavirus, I believe that we must take a fresh look at our plans for industrial policy and long-term economic growth. As a consequence of all this, alongside the Budget, we have published “Build Back Better: our plan for growth”. Our cross-government plan for growth signals a departure from the industrial strategy brand and details a renewed focus on infrastructure, skills and innovation. It reflects new opportunities available to us following our exit from the European Union, which was successfully achieved as a consequence of the deal that we struck at the end of last year. This opens up new ways to drive growth, build on our competitive advantage and support a vision for a truly global Britain. We will draw on the valuable lessons we have learnt from the 2017 industrial strategy as we transition to this new, more focused and more ambitious plan for growth.
I want to reassure the House that the energy of my Department is entirely focused on building back better after the coronavirus pandemic. It is leading the Government’s work on supporting British industry and priority sectors, and I am happy to acknowledge that we are building on the incredibly dynamic and good work that was pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells. We will publish our innovation strategy in the summer. We will set out details of our approach to supporting sectors, places and technologies in the innovation strategy. Those will give a clear indication and sense of purpose as we seek to shape the UK’s future. My Department is already leading on strategies with respect to net zero, hydrogen and, of course, innovation itself, as well as the space strategy. We are engaging on a comprehensive programme of work to protect and create jobs as we transition to net zero.
The principle underlying all this effort is, of course, the green recovery. We fully intend to end, and we will end, our contribution to climate change by 2050, and we will do so through investments and innovations such as the ones I have just mentioned. Last week’s Budget builds on the framework set out by the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, as well as on the support announced at the spending review and in the national infrastructure strategy.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke fulsomely about the UK infrastructure bank. The bank will target investment in green projects, which will help us meet our net zero targets in the public and  private sectors throughout the country. It will provide a global centre of excellence and advisory support for net zero projects across the country.
We have committed an initial £12 billion of capital and £10 billion of guarantees. By crowding in— attracting—private investment, we fully expect the bank to support at least £40 billion of investment in our precious infrastructure. This investment will help us to amplify success in decreasing emissions, which we have already reduced by 44% against 1990 levels. That is by far the best performance in the G7.
With our strengths in many sectors, from offshore wind to hydrogen, carbon capture technologies and zero-emission vehicles, we are well placed to seize the opportunity of the green transition and lead a global green industrial revolution. The 10-point plan, which the Budget expands on, puts us in a very good position to achieve that goal.
Backed by £12 billion of public investment, the 10-point plan will reinvigorate our industrial heartlands in the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire, the Humber, the midlands, Scotland, Wales and elsewhere. It will support the creation of hundreds of thousands of green jobs across the UK by 2030. It represents a really exciting and dynamic vision for the development of economic opportunity throughout this country.
This is a Budget that is timely in its interventions, entirely realistic in its ambitions and, above all, remorselessly and unapologetically optimistic about the future of the United Kingdom. It outlines an investment-led recovery, with a targeted, laser-like approach to levelling up every nation and region.
Thanks to the actions of the Government, we will emerge from this virus sooner and stronger than many would have anticipated. Thanks to the Budget, we have the means and the tools necessary to continue our trajectory towards recovery in the next year. We will be embracing innovation, we will be creating green jobs and we will be rejuvenating our industrial heartlands and spreading opportunities. We look forward to building back better throughout the entirety of the United Kingdom.

Ed Miliband: I want to start by quoting a speech given in this Chamber 77 years ago, in June 1944, by Ernest Bevin, who was then the Minister of Labour. He said:
“With my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I had an opportunity of visiting one of our ports and seeing the men, of the 50th Division among others, going aboard ship…The one question they put to me when I went through their ranks was, ‘Ernie, when we have done this job for you, are we going back to the dole?’…Both the Prime Minister and I answered, ‘No, you are not.’”—[Official Report, 21 June 1944; Vol. 401, c. 212-13.]
The circumstances of this Budget are, of course, very different, but the sentiment is just as relevant. As we come through a very different national crisis, how do we in our generation do right by the British people? Some 120,000 people have died from covid. Our way of life has been dramatically restricted. Our key workers have stepped up and put themselves in harm’s way for all of us. Businesses have shuttered to protect our health and have faced incredible strain. The British people have been nothing short of heroic.
While the crisis has revealed the best of our country, it has also laid bare the deep flaws in the way our institutions and economy are run. In the words of the OBR,
“the UK has experienced higher rates of infection, hospitalisations, and deaths from the virus than other countries.”
We know that is partly because of higher deprivation, inequality and poverty. We know we are deeply unequal, both within and between our regions. Even before this crisis, 2 million of our fellow citizens faced destitution. That means they lacked at least two of the following basic essentials: shelter, food, heating, lighting, clothing or basic toiletries. That should shame us all in one of the richest countries in the world. We know our public services are deeply underfunded, from health to social care. We know, too, that the world of work is characterised by deep divisions of power, which meant some workers were safe and some were not.
This chasm between the spirit of the British people and the reality of how our country works demands from us that we face the Bevin question once again, of how we transform our country not just on jobs, but on public services and on inequality, too. This challenges us all, whatever party, to think bigger and more boldly. Of course that is hard, in the dire circumstances we face coming out of this pandemic—the public finances are under strain and the economy will take time to recover—but they are far less dire than those Bevin and his colleagues faced after 1945, and they thought big about the kind of country we could be. They raised their sights in the face of adversity.
While I would praise some of the measures taken by the Chancellor, I do not believe that a fair-minded observer would say that the Budget passes the Bevin test. On jobs, according to the OBR, even by 2025 unemployment never even gets back to pre-crisis levels. On welfare, the Budget tells people on universal credit that they need to go back to living on £74 a week from September, just as unemployment starts to peak. On the next crisis—the climate emergency—the Budget rejects a green stimulus and cuts green spending, as I will explain.
On public services—I do not think the Business Secretary talked about public services—the Budget appears to draw the extraordinary lesson from the crisis that public services need less resources, not more. In total, £17 billion has been taken out of departmental spending since Budget 2020, which was before the crisis, despite the greater needs and despite all that has been revealed in the pandemic.
What does building back better mean when unemployment is higher as far as the eye can see, the welfare state goes back to the way it was, the green revolution is ducked and public service spending is cut? This Budget fails the Bevin test and the build back better test. Why? I think it is because the Government have not truly learned the lessons of the past decade.
To be fair, the Government have been remarkably open about the failure of the last decade. The Business Secretary referred to the “Build Back Better” document that they published. It is a very interesting document, perhaps not for the reasons intended. There is a striking chart that shows the long-standing productivity gap between ourselves and our competitors, but it shows  something else. In the past decade, we have not addressed our long-standing weaknesses, but fallen further behind. The productivity gap has doubled with Germany and is up by three quarters with France and one quarter with the US. Government getting out of the way did not work. Markets left to their own devices did not work and austerity did not work, so the question for the Government is: what are they going to do differently in the coming years from the last 10?
We needed first of all—the right hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) have made reference to it—an industrial policy that intervenes at scale to help growth sectors and industries to succeed. There is one pre-eminent test on that, which is the green stimulus. To give some context, President Biden has pledged a $1.7 trillion green plan over 10 years. Germany has committed €40 billion over two years and France €30 billion over two years. Even what the Business Secretary claims—I will come to that shortly—is a fraction of that amount over the decade.
Let us take the infrastructure bank, as the Secretary of State talked about that. The OBR is highly revealing on the infrastructure bank: the annual spending of the bank is going to be just a third of the amount of its predecessor, the European Investment Bank—£1.5 billion a year versus £5 billion a year. So, not more investment, but less. What is the OBR’s verdict on the infrastructure bank? It says that
“given the scale of its operations (at around 0.1 per cent of GDP a year) and the fact that it replaces only some European Investment Bank activity, we have not adjusted our economy forecast.”
In other words, the bank has absolutely zero effect on growth, from all of those green measures that the Business Secretary talked about.
One of the most interesting things about the Budget—but which has perhaps been less remarked on—is that the growth returns to trend is up just an anaemic 1.7%. That is incredibly low by historical standards. This is low growth and low ambition.
A green stimulus could have helped our crucial manufacturing sectors, but instead they were left out in the cold. On steel, where is the £250 million clean steel fund, which was promised two years ago? There is no mention of steel in this 110-page document. On offshore wind, we are way off the Government’s target of 60% domestic content, and the negligible resources in the Budget simply do not measure up. On the automotive sector, I want to say something positive: it is good that the Government have brought forward the date of the petrol and diesel phase-out to 2030, which is what we called for. But I say to the Business Secretary that the rhetoric of ambition is not matched by financial support for this crucial sector. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said in reaction to the Budget:
“This is an opportunity lost”.
Germany is investing a total of €7 billion for transformation; we are way off that. The Government seem almost allergic to support for these sectors.
Let us take another area that everybody agreed could create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and I do not think the Business Secretary mentioned this either. It could help people in every community in our country: home insulation and retrofitting. We need a transformation of our housing stock. People may forget that the flagship policy of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan was the  green homes grant. The Business Secretary was given personal responsibility, as the Minister of State, for the green homes grant. He told us the Government would learn the lessons of the green deal, which had been a complete disaster:
“We’re completely focused on trying to make this a much better roll-out, and we’ve learned our lessons…We need to make sure that the right projects are identified, and that we can get the money out”.
It would “pave the way”, he said,
“for the UK’s green homes revolution.”
What has happened? The project has been a complete fiasco on his watch: contractors not paid; installers forced to make lay-offs; homeowners unable to get the grants—not a long-term comprehensive plan, but a piecemeal, privatised approach characterised by shambolic delivery on his watch, and he said not a word about it. He would be welcome to come in and say something about it now; he obviously does not want to. And no wonder: now the Government are cutting more than £1 billion from the green homes grant scheme as it has been such a disaster.
Is this just an accident? No, it is not. The failure on the green homes grant and on green manufacturing is all part of the same problem. The Government are good at talking about a green revolution; they will the ends, but not the means—a proper, thought-through industrial strategy. Indeed, tragically, we now have a Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who does not believe in industrial strategy. If I can put it this way, he is half the Secretary of State he once was. Any self-respecting organisation would have asked him in the interview when he was applying for the post of Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—although Secretaries of State do not exactly apply, they are offered the job—“Do you believe in industrial strategy?”
We got suspicious when in one of his first acts he tore up plans for the industrial strategy White Paper, and we thought, “How curious.” Then on Thursday we found out he had abolished the Industrial Strategy Council set up by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead. I hope the right hon. Lady will not take it amiss if I say that I admired some of her work, and this is one of the things I admired. I pay tribute to her and the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells; they learned the lessons of our history and said, “We need Government, business and unions working together on this joint enterprise, coming together to address the challenges our country faces.” And, goodness me, do we need this now as we seek to recover from coronavirus.
I have to say to the Business Secretary, who is new to his job, that this decision has caused consternation—I do not think that is too strong a word for it—in businesses up and down the country. Make UK said that it causes
“significant concern and frustration within manufacturers of all sizes across the UK.”
The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said that the strategy’s demise was a
“short-sighted step that ministers will come to regret”.
All around the country, thanks to the work that was done, local chambers of commerce and local enterprise partnerships have spent years working on local industrial strategies. Now they are wondering what they are supposed to do with them, because the strategy seems to have fallen out of favour.
People might think that is just an accident. It is not an accident. I know that the Business Secretary dismisses his past pamphlets as the work of a maverick Back Bencher, but it is not a coincidence, because this—it is very interesting—is what he wrote:
“The draining of effort from our psyche has been replaced by a sense of entitlement.”
I do not know quite what that means. He continued:
“It has also led to a false belief in the value of industrial policy.”
I thought he had put all that behind him, but clearly not. He is so ideological—so dogmatic—about the free market that he had to get rid of the industrial strategy, and therefore he cannot deliver the partnership between Government and business that the country needs.
Let us turn more generally to business support. Businesses have made huge sacrifices in this crisis, as I said, and they face huge challenges in recovering from the pandemic, added to which are the billions of pounds of red tape as a result of the implementation of the Brexit deal. Even when the health crisis is over, businesses will take a long time to recover. We welcome some of the measures talked about by the Business Secretary, but there are still important groups that I believe are left out: two thirds of the excluded self-employed are not helped by this Budget, including limited companies, many freelancers and others; supply chain businesses are still left out; and whole sectors, such as the wedding industry, are ignored. Their plight will hold back the recovery.
We know that business debt is one of the biggest threats not just to individual businesses but to the recovery as a whole. Some £70 billion of business debt has built up during the crisis. In December, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that the proportion of those businesses describing their debt as “unmanageable” was 40%. The OBR says that, on current plans, the Chancellor will have to write off £27 billion of those loans.
In these circumstances, a sensible Chancellor would have been creative, yet he still refuses to budge. We have a scheme from the Chancellor with no links to profits, no ability to restructure and no ability for management or workers to develop creative solutions. He is just leaving it to the banks. Well, even the banks are telling him that that is very risky. If we face a wave of insolvencies, it will be at the Chancellor’s door. The danger is that this holds back the recovery, and it certainly fails the Bevin test.
Many of the businesses facing those debts are on our high streets, in retail. What is the single biggest long-term change that those businesses require? It is to address the deep unfairness that high street shops face against online retailers. I am sure that the Business Secretary is familiar with that problem. The Government launched a review of business rates not in the last Budget, not in the Budget before, not in the one before that, but six years ago. In fact, they launched the review so long ago that I was Leader of the Opposition when they did so—it is that long ago! A long-term Budget would have finally taken action in this area, but instead we got more delay.
I turn to the measures that were taken. On the so-called super deduction, we will welcome any measure to help business, but I point out, as we think about our capital stock and investment, that the OBR says that that measure
“does not affect the long-run level of the…capital stock”.
In other words, it will make a difference to the timing of business investment, but in fact, according to the OBR, business investment is expected to fall significantly in 2023 and 2024, and there are real questions about why this measure is targeted just at plant and machinery, which is only one fifth of business investment. Then we have freeports, which have been tried for 30 years. I am afraid that all the evidence is that, at best, they may displace economic activity from one area left out of prosperity to another a few miles away.
The problem is that the Government simply do not get that we cannot build private sector success on the back of public sector austerity. The cuts of the last decade have made local services worse, squeezed demand and undermined the crucial infrastructure of business success. People might wonder, “Well maybe they’ve learned their lesson.” I fear they have not. Again, this was not very clear from the Budget on the day, six days ago, but in a year’s time, for many of our public services, it will be austerity all over again. Next year, for current services in transport, housing and local government, and other so-called unprotected areas, public spending will be cut in real terms by £2.6 billion. Let us be clear: growth is anaemic, because their measures are so weak, so they turn to a strategy they tried from 2010 of cutting current spending and raising taxes on ordinary families. I fear they have not learned the lessons. They cannot grow the economy if they are giving tax cuts with one hand, but cutting the services that communities and businesses rely on with the other.
The issue is not just about resources, but about who spends them and where they are spent. We are the most regionally unequal country of any major developed economy and the most centralised. The levelling-up fund is a centralised pot of money to be determined by Ministers, and we are starting to discover where the money is actually going.
Salford is the 18th most deprived area in the country, but it is placed not in the category of most need—category 1 —but in category 2. Barnsley is the 38th most deprived area and is also in category 2. Richmond is 256th out of 317 for deprivation, but it happens to cover the Chancellor’s constituency, so it has found its way into category 1. The Government have said this is based on objective criteria, so what are they? Again, I am very happy to give way to the Business Secretary if he wants to explain what these objective criteria are. If it is all above board, why have they not published the criteria? Of course, they have form on this—the towns fund, the crony outsourcing of contracts to donors. The British people have a right to expect that the money meant for the most deprived areas is spent in the most deprived areas.
Ministers do not get the role for Government, they leave it to the market; they cannot tackle the inequalities we face; and, far from leaving austerity behind, for many it will look like austerity, feel like austerity and it will be austerity.
Of course, we have the most egregious example of all in the decision to cut the pay of nurses and NHS staff. They more than anyone have been the heroes of this crisis: they have put themselves in harm’s way for all of us. The Government promised a pay rise in the NHS plan. They did not just promise it; they legislated for it and they walked through the Lobby a year ago to vote  for it. The Business Secretary was put up on “Question Time” on Thursday, as this decision was breaking, to try to justify this broken promise, and this is what he said:
“When I look at people in the hospitality sector, in aviation, in retail, many of them are very…worried they won’t…be in a job in two or three months.”

Kwasi Kwarteng: indicated assent.

Ed Miliband: He nods. As if that is somehow a justification for cutting the pay of nurses. What is the world in which their plight justifies cutting the pay of our nurses? I have never heard anyone, in a year of discussions, in any of those sectors say to me, “I’m finding it hard, so Government should cut nurses’ pay.” People would only say that if they believe in a race to the bottom or they believe in levelling down.
Before the Minister says everybody needs to tighten their belts, he should be careful, because it turns out there is plenty of cash to spend millions on a Downing Street makeover for a media briefing room that has not been used; to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to pay off the man the Home Secretary was accused of bullying; and to give Dominic Cummings a 40% pay rise. The truth is it is one rule for them and another rule for everyone else. Let them not ever try again to tell people in this country that we are in this together.
Beneath the rhetoric, the Government cannot be the answer to the problems of the country. They may have produced a document charting 10 years of failure on productivity, but they have not changed their view. The answer to 10 years of failure cannot be more of the same. This should have been a Budget with a plan to respond to the climate emergency by creating the jobs of the future; and a Budget with a plan to help business through the crisis and beyond with debt restructuring, providing a decent pay rise for our key workers and dignity in the social security system, rather than plunging the most vulnerable into deeper poverty. This is a Budget of low ambition for Britain. The post-war generation would never have accepted such a meagre vision as that presented by the Chancellor and the Government. They never would have, and neither should we, and that is why we will vote against the Budget tonight.

Theresa May: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In unprecedented times, I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for recognising the need to combine continued support for people in jobs, even as we see the light at the end of the tunnel of this pandemic, with the need to restore our public finances and to set us on the path of growth for recovery in the future. I will not dwell on the first of those, but I welcome specifically the funding for tackling domestic abuse, focused as it will be on the perpetrator programmes often overlooked in the past. However, I continue to fail to understand why the Treasury, and, I fear, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, seem institutionally incapable of understanding the significance of the aviation sector for jobs and for our economy.
On other specific issues, I wish to refer to one group who are badly affected by the impact of dealing with the pandemic: women. There is evidence to show that lockdown measures have been particularly difficult for  women, and that there are women who have abandoned their careers because they have found it impossible to juggle the requirements of lockdown, with home schooling and so forth, with their careers. We need those women in the workplace. We need those female entrepreneurs for our future. I urge the Government to look actively at what they can do to deal with that issue and to encourage women entrepreneurs.
Another group badly affected by the pandemic is young people, with the hospitality sector being a case in point. The intergenerational divide between young and old has been exacerbated by the measures taken to deal with the pandemic, so it is absolutely right that we take measures to restore our public finances and do not simply land the bill on young people and future generations. I know there are those, including some of my colleagues, who will say, “You don’t need to do anything to taxes. You just need to have growth”, but one worry from this Budget must be the OBR forecast for growth. It is forecast in the medium term not to return to the pre-financial crisis level of an average annual rate of 2.5%, but to be around the pre-covid rate of 1.5%. There is no doubt that the pandemic has had an impact, but pre-covid the uncertainty around Brexit was also having an impact on our economy. Of course there is every prospect that Brexit will have a continued impact in reducing the size of our economy into the future. So we need to focus on growth, and I will say a little more specifically about that in a moment.
I am concerned that the Government have simply adopted the Treasury orthodoxy that if we wish to encourage investment by business, all we do are capital allowances. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary that year after year that is the answer the Treasury comes up with. If we want an innovation economy, we need to invest and support investment in areas that encourage growth and innovation, and that means research and development. We are to see another consultation on R&D tax credits—I believe it is the third in three years. I have to say to him: stop consulting, just get on and do something. We could extend the definition of R&D expenditure or increase the rate, but we must act. We need investment in innovation, not in chief executives’ Jacuzzis.
Another area I want to emphasise for my right hon. Friend is that there is a lot of talk from Government—we all do it and we have done it in the past—about capital spending, and infrastructure is always what we reach for. We must never forget, however, that human capital is increasingly what we must be investing in. We should be ensuring that there is effort and funding available for the skills White Paper and for the response to the Augar review. What we need to build back better is a plan that transforms the economy: ideas and an innovation economy; people investing in skills; upgrading infrastructure; and making this the best place to grow and start a business. That was the modern industrial strategy.
The Government say they need a new framework. My right hon. Friend has said that that framework builds on the industrial strategy, but it does not. There are two reasons this is the wrong approach. First, we need a long-term strategy. We cannot just magic a plan out of thin air and expect it to work in a year or so—we need something that will work longer term. We should make changes where necessary, not just for the sake of making a change.
Secondly, a huge amount of effort went in, with Government working with the private sector, to develop that modern industrial strategy. The private sector welcomed it, because it was not about picking winners. This is where I depart from the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), because Labour’s answer was always to pick winners; we agreed with business the sectors that needed to be strengthened and in which we were strong, and let the market decide the companies that were going to be the winners. We need to continue with that effort. The industrial strategy was welcomed by the private sector and it was recognised internationally. Do not abandon it. Build on it, for the sake of all our futures.

Nigel Evans: It was like a blast from the past there, momentarily.

Peter Grant: It is always a privilege to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party in a debate such as this. I say to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), that I do not think I have ever agreed so much with anything that she has said in her life, but I assure her that it is not a habit that I intend to continue for too long.
I commend the Minister on at least having the courage to mention Brexit in his opening remarks, because the Chancellor did not mention it once in his entire speech, despite the fact that the economic damage of Brexit is likely to be worse than that of the covid pandemic. I am puzzled as to how the Minister was able to describe that as a successful Brexit. If 4% off GDP was a successful result, I shudder to think what a bad Brexit would have been like in the Government’s eyes.
The Chancellor’s Budget speech contained all the usual words, all the usual platitudes and all the usual elements. There was a lot of bluster about how wonderful the Government are and obligatory name drops for some hand-picked Tory MPs, interspersed here and there with bits of substance, most of which we had already read in the previous weekend’s newspapers.
Perhaps unusually, I would not take immediate issue with a great deal of what the Chancellor announced. I want to see the details, obviously, because I know from experience that the reality can be very different from what is announced at the Dispatch Box, but in principle I would support a lot of what was announced. The problem is what was not announced and what the Chancellor did not say. He did not say nearly enough about permanent support for the millions of families who are living in poverty. He did not say enough about supporting millions of small businesses and self-employed people who continue to be excluded. He did not say enough about several key sectors of the economy that still face an existential threat as a result of the covid pandemic, in some cases combined with other factors. He certainly did not say enough about investing in our public services and in the people who have served them with such dedication and professionalism during the last dreadful 12 months.
The former Prime Minister, who just finished speaking, mentioned the importance of our aviation industry. Even without the pandemic, we knew that that industry needed to change radically because of climate change.  Even a year ago, none of us would have predicted the almost total closure of an entire industry, so what is the Chancellor’s vision for how the aviation industry will look five to 10 years from now? How big will it be? Will air traffic be back to pre-pandemic numbers? Will aviation still directly provide 470,000 jobs and still support around 650,000 other jobs in the UK, as it did before the pandemic? If it does not, what will happen to all the people whose jobs disappear? If the Chancellor’s speech is anything to go by, the answer to all those questions is that he does not know and probably has not even thought about it, because he never mentioned aviation during his speech. In almost 6,500 words, the industry that has perhaps been the worst affected of all industries during covid was literally never mentioned.
When we look at the crisis facing our retail industry, we see, again, that changes were happening anyway because of the growth in online shopping. There were around 143,000 job losses in retail the year before the pandemic and there are likely to be a further 380,000 between 2020 and 2021. Where is the recovery plan? Do the Government even have a vision of what the recovered retail industry will look like? Yes, there is a partial continuation of short-term survival rations and, of course, there is always the towns fund if someone happens to live in a marginal constituency, but otherwise, there is no indication that the Government have any clue how they intend to help our local shops and shopping centres to recover, or even if they care whether or not they recover.
Retail, aviation and, I could mention, oil and gas are all industries where the effects of wholesale change have been greatly accelerated and magnified by the covid pandemic. While those changes may have been inevitable, the Government’s continued failure to support the people who will be affected is anything but inevitable. We cannot allow this Tory Government to turn their back on hundreds of thousands of retail workers and aviation workers in the same way that they abandoned hundreds of thousands of miners in my constituency and others across these islands.
In addition to the lack of any clear vision for key sectors in the economy, there is a continued refusal to acknowledge the desperate plight of millions of self-employed people and small business owners. Of course, I welcome the fact that the Chancellor was eventually dragged kicking and screaming to announce an overdue and humiliating U-turn on support for about 600,000 self-employed people, but we in the SNP are not going to forget the 2.4 million others—the creators, freelancers and small business owner-director—who are still being deliberately abandoned. Last year, I warned that many of these people stand to lose their houses and everything they own if their businesses go under. Last week, the Chancellor had a choice: give them the support they need and deserve, or ignore them. He chose to ignore them yet again. Before the Budget, the Prospect trade union found that 46% of all self-employed people are less likely to stay in self-employment as a result of their experiences during the pandemic and 18% are unsure. That means barely a third of people in self-employment were sure they intended to stay there, and that was before the non-support that most of them got in last week’s Budget. These are the people we rely on to drive  the recovery as we come out of the covid emergency. They are not asking for charity; they are asking for a fair deal. They deserve that. It is all they want.
As well as those 3 million people, perhaps falling to 2.4 million this year, there are now millions who have had to fall back on a benefit system that was never designed to support so many people for so long and was never fit for the purpose for which it was supposed to have been designed in the first place. The continuation of the £20 uplift is welcome, but it should be continued permanently. The cliff edge the Government are talking about threatens to plunge 60,000 people, including 20,000 children, into poverty in Scotland alone. The Government claimed that the response to covid would be driven by data not dates, so why is the universal credit cliff edge being set by a date regardless of what the data might say? I submit that an economic recovery in which the poorest get left behind is no economic recovery at all. We can judge how much this Chancellor and this Government care about the eradication of poverty from the fact that the Chancellor did not mention the word “poverty” even once in his entire speech.
The Budget fails to address the economic challenges that will impact on all our living standards for decades to come. It fails adequately to support the businesses on which our economic recovery depends. It fails to provide a decent income for millions of our citizens. The people of Scotland can have no confidence in this Budget. For the last 60 years, the people of Scotland have declared they have no confidence in the Government behind the present Budget. It is now clear that most people in Scotland no longer have any confidence in a constitutional Union that allows such a Government to continue to ride roughshod over the ancient rights of the people of Scotland.

Iain Duncan Smith: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
No Chancellor has faced this kind of crisis in living memory and, by and large, I think the Chancellor has navigated through it with some skill over the last year, supporting those who need support as much as he can. The Bill, as a result, underpins all of this particular Budget: some £407 billion will be spent by the end of next year, with an eye-watering deficit of over £250 billion, as set out in the Budget he has just produced. That clouds every single judgment.
The key point I want to make, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), is that we must not lose sight of the reality of the need for growth. If we forget that, then we fall back on the idea that we will somehow get through this. The OBR’s forecasts for growth should make us sit up and look very carefully at that. I worry that the level of growth beyond the year after next is really very low in relation to where we start from now. If we cannot grow faster than that, it says a huge amount about some of our policies. I therefore remind my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that growth is the No. 1 reality for us now.
That is why I was somewhat concerned about some issues, and I want to come back to them, but one thing I did like, which feeds towards the idea of growth, is the super deduction tax relief to kickstart business investment. That is the right kind of thing to do: encourage businesses  to bring their money back in to invest in the UK. The news about freeports is also very good indeed. I hope the Government will have time to review the corporation tax rate and be very careful about the effect of that further down the road. I note that the Chancellor has given himself some time to look at that very carefully.
The issue here is that sometimes we compare productivity across countries. I give a warning about that. I do not know why the Treasury has not done more work on this. No two countries compile productivity rates at the same level. For example, France does not have the public sector in its productivity rates; it has only the private sector. That means that comparisons are often between apples and pears. Our problem in the UK is not productivity, because the London and the south-east have the highest productivity in the whole of Europe. Our problem is regional productivity. No other region of the UK meets the average for the UK in productivity. That single fact should tell us more than anything else why it is critical to put stuff and build things in the north, the midlands and places such as Wales. Our productivity around the country does not match that average level of productivity, as we are far too concentrated in London and the south-east.
I agree with those who have said that R&D tax credits are really important. I would stress that that is a good idea and a policy that the Government have to push forward on, because it encourages greater growth. We must remember that many of our technology advancements are made in universities these days, and we have to maximise that. On deregulation, I am going to come forward with plans shortly; there is huge scope for us to release some businesses through deregulation.
I want to draw to a close by making a couple of points. First, I want to make the case for the Government to review the universal credit money. The reason for that is that universal credit is not a flat payment; it is a dynamic process, and it is aimed at helping people back to work. So in truth, even if we invest the £6 billion in universal credit, as we get more people back to work, the cost of that falls because they are back at work and paying taxes. This is the critical bit: I do not want it to be compared with the furlough scheme, which is a very different item. Universal credit is about getting people back to work, and therefore they pay more. I recommend that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), and his colleagues think carefully about that, because money was taken out of it some years before, and it needs that investment back in it. That was how it was intended.
My last point relates to the 0.7% on overseas aid. I understand the Government’s issue on this and I recognise their problem, but I hope they will keep this under review. As we move away from certain countries, places such as China will move in, and their money will come with serious problems. They will demand more dictatorial government. We need only to look at Burma to see what is going on when China supports countries. I just raise that as a policy point that the Government may want to think about.
Overall, I say to the Government that this has been a good Budget, but it is a Budget that needs to buy a bit of time, and we must think carefully: growth, growth, growth is the most important thing in front of us now.

Darren Jones: The reality of this Budget is that the Government have no credible plan for long-term economic growth that will meet the required scale of ambition for the net zero transition, that will mean real change for workers in every community across the country or that will really help businesses to grow and make a profit. There is no denying that the extension of covid support was welcome, and I am pleased that the Chancellor agreed with my Committee’s assessment that premature end dates had caused unnecessary redundancies and harm to business, but that was the least that we could have expected. On a longer-term vision for our country, I cannot find very much at all. The OBR has concluded that Brexit will shrink our economy by 4% and covid by an additional 3%. After the initial year of reopening post-lockdown, our expectations for growth still hover around only 1.5% a year, and in the face of a decade of failed austerity, the Chancellor has still cut billions from day-to-day spending.
There is a reason that Labour in government was able to invest in our nurses and teachers—something this Government are not willing to do. There is a reason that Labour in government was able to take millions of pensioners and children out of poverty. This Government did not mention child poverty once in the Budget. That reason was sustainable, long-term economic growth. The one major piece of Government policy that attempted to take a longer-term view of the economy was the industrial strategy—a strategy that after only four years was cancelled via a footnote in the Budget and a leaked letter sacking the national Industrial Strategy Council. That is not how you announce major changes to Britain’s industrial policy. The Secretary of State said today that the industrial strategy was a “pudding without a theme”. With respect, he has not just withdrawn the pudding; he has failed to serve the starters and the main course as well.
The so-called plan for growth generates more questions than answers; it is essentially of no use to business. The national infrastructure bank was also supposed to be about long-term growth, but it has been given public funding of only £12 billion, which is £8 billion less than the amount recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission and a whopping £23 billion less than the European Investment Bank used to invest in the UK alone, when the UK was a member of the European Union.
The Budget also fell short of the required ambition to deliver on our net zero commitments, with no real increase in infrastructure spending and the Chancellor sticking to his previous position of only 3% of GDP. That is, I am afraid, a continuation of Ministers announcing targets with no plan or finance to allow them to happen. The Government cannot just announce a green industrial revolution and hope for the best. A failure to stimulate the growth of the green economy is just part of their failure in the Budget to meet the scale of the unemployment challenge. According to HMRC data, 782,000 fewer people are on company payrolls since October 2020, yet does the Government’s job and skills programme meet the scale of the challenge? No, it does not.
For all the failures by the Government in the Budget, I want to end on a positive note. Throughout the pandemic, both as a constituency MP and Chair of the  Business Committee, I have seen the remarkable abilities of the British people to adapt to the challenges that we face: the researchers and innovators that led the world in genomic sequencing in vaccine development; the engineers who pivoted from aircraft wings to ventilators; and the small businesses that transformed themselves by moving online. Our key workers—carers, nurses, shopworkers, truck drivers, teachers, police officers and many more—kept our country moving when we all had to stop, reminding us of our sense of national duty, and the volunteers, churches, food banks and resident groups renewed our sense of community. Behind every business and public service is a worker, a business owner, a leader, an innovator, a public servant, a citizen of our United Kingdom. Brexit, technology, climate change and the legacy of covid are all like tectonic plates, slowly reshaping the British economy.
We need every person who can to roll up their sleeves and contribute to the national effort of recovery and change, where each country in our Union depends on each of the others for our collective national success. However, we also need a Prime Minister who has a bolder vision for modernising Britain in the post-covid world—a vision of a modern Britain that not only meets our ambitions as a country, but recognises and rewards the enormous potential of the British people.
Last week’s Budget could have been something special. It could have been the start of a new chapter for a more sustainable, inclusive and successful Britain, meeting the challenges of reshaping the British economy and providing work for people in every community; a Budget that showed the British people that we could be excited by the future and proud of our country once again. Instead, it had no credible long-term plan for growth and no credible long-term plan for the future. It was, unfortunately, a return to the failures of the past.

Mark Menzies: Greetings from Lancashire, Mr Deputy Speaker.
May I begin by welcoming the Budget delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week? I also particularly thank him for the support that he has given to the tourism and leisure sector throughout the pandemic.
In the three minutes that I have I shall first acknowledge the importance of infrastructure and the considerable investment that this Government and, indeed, the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), have made in the north-west of England, and my constituency in particular. The M55 link road, the A585 Singleton bypass, the Preston western distributor road, the South Fylde line passing loop, £10 million for Kirkham town centre, a new school at Lytham St Annes High School—and the list goes on. So, to pretend that the Government and their predecessor did not invest in the north-west, were not committed to levelling up and did not have a plan for the future is, I am afraid, the result of reading Labour party press releases.
I shall focus attention on three things, briefly—first, the importance of enterprise zones in generating jobs and investment locally. Blackpool enterprise zone has been a huge success and we have about 1,200 jobs in the  process of being created in what was an area of incredibly high unemployment and some of the most deprived communities anywhere in the United Kingdom; so those jobs are incredibly welcome. However, I would just encourage the Minister on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who I believe also has responsibility for Lancashire, to make sure that enterprise zones do not, as a consequence of the development of freeports and some of the other strategies unveiled in the Budget, become the poor relation.
I would like to make sure, as the UK Government host COP 26, that nuclear fuel is front and centre, because in order for the United Kingdom to develop a radical decarbonisation strategy, it is very important not only that we are investing in small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors—documents for which are currently sat with the Treasury—but that we have the means to manufacture all the aspects within that, and in my constituency nuclear fuel is responsible for 900 jobs.
Finally, when it comes to aerospace, I have the head- quarters of BAE Systems in my constituency, employing just over 6,000 people. Team Tempest and the integrated review are incredibly important to us. They are the jobs of the future. It is the technology that has been referred to today. I encourage the Treasury to look to the future, invest in technology and continue to support the Fylde and the north-west.

Edward Davey: This Budget fails millions of people across the UK. It fails tens of thousands of small businesses and millions of self-employed people. It fails millions of NHS staff and carers, and it fails future generations with its lack of ambition for action on climate change. The Liberal Democrats argued for a Budget for small businesses, which would protect shops, restaurants, pubs, cafés, beauticians and barbers, all of which make up our local high streets, and create jobs in our communities. The Liberal Democrats wanted a Budget to make our country fairer, greener and more caring. We got the reverse.
There is no doubt that our economy and our national finances are both in a terrible state, so I welcome the sharp U-turn that the Chancellor has made on corporation tax. Large and profitable businesses must pay their fair share, but other choices that the Chancellor has made are clearly wrong. By freezing the personal income tax allowance for years, the Conservatives are targeting tax rises on the lowest paid. In Government, the Liberal Democrats championed and won the case for higher income tax allowance because it meant lower taxes for the lowest paid. By contrast, what the Chancellor has announced will hit the lowest paid with higher taxes. We will oppose this deeply unfair move.
Tax hikes are not the only way that this Government will punish hard-working families. Given that the NHS has performed so brilliantly during the pandemic, why are Ministers offering nurses, doctors and health workers an insulting 1% pay rise? What world does the Prime Minister live in if he thinks that a 1% pay rise is acceptable for Britain’s NHS heroes? When this Government doled out billions of pounds in contracts to private companies, many of which had close links with the Conservative party, how can Ministers say that they  cannot afford a better pay deal for our nurses and doctors? Conservative MPs who back this shameful decision on NHS pay will have to answer for it.
Finally, I want to come to the other disastrous move that this Government have made: the EU trade deal, the albatross around the neck of British businesses. Whether it is the Office for Budget Responsibility report of this Budget or other analysis, the evidence so far shows that the UK’s recovery will be weaker than that of other countries, because this Government chose to erect new barriers to trade and hit our exporters with the biggest rise in red tape ever, just as British businesses are struggling with the deepest recession for 300 years.
This Budget does nothing to make our country fairer, greener, or more caring. It fails those who most need our support right now—those who have been working tirelessly to keep us safe during the coronavirus crisis and the businesses fighting desperately to stay afloat. The country deserves so much better. The Liberal Democrats will oppose this Budget.

Liz Kendall: Today, I want to talk about the Budget and social care, or rather the lack of anything in the Budget on social care. The case that I want to make is not that the Government should have brought forward their long-promised reforms because the pandemic has exposed fundamental flaws that we must address if we want dignity and security for elderly and disabled people; it is not that these reforms are desperately needed because families have been pushed to their limits helping to care for loved ones; it is not even that our frontline care workers deserve a decent pay rise after everything that they have been through—although all these points are clearly true. The argument that I want to make today is not the moral case for social care reform, but the economic case. The Government’s failure to grasp the role that social care plays in our wider economy is undermining growth, productivity and the need to get value for taxpayers’ money, all of which are essential with both family finances and the public finances under such strain.
Much of the debate about how we build back better or level up has focused on investing in our physical infrastructure, but investing in our social infrastructure is equally important. Put simply, in today’s world childcare and social care are as much a part of our economic infrastructure as the roads and railways. First, that is because of the basics of demographic change; our population is ageing, and we need more than half a million more care workers just to keep pace with the growing demand. The Resolution Foundation has rightly argued that if the Government prioritised investment in social care, that would quickly boost jobs in every part of the country. The Women’s Budget Group has shown that investing in care would ultimately generate even more employment, because of the multiplier effects.
The second argument for investing in social care is to help improve our low productivity rates. Too many workers—predominantly women—have to take jobs below their true skill level, reduce their hours or leave the labour market because they cannot get the help they need to balance work and family life. With our ageing population, that is as much about the lack of social care as it is about the availability of affordable childcare. We have to change this. Finally, we need to invest in prioritising  social care to stop costs being shifted to other more expensive parts of the public sector. Just look at delayed discharges from hospital; it makes no sense to have elderly people stuck in more expensive, acute care, when they could be cared for at home.
We have to do more to boost jobs and growth. Reform of social care is vital to achieving those goals. It is a matter of social justice and an economic necessity. The Government must bring forward their plans for reform; there is not a moment to waste.

Damien Moore: The Chancellor’s Budget last week comes against the backdrop of the country facing the biggest peacetime crisis in modern times—not just a health crisis, but a financial one as well. Throughout the pandemic, the Chancellor, under this Conservative Government, has ensured that most people have been provided for in a variety of different ways, balancing support for individuals and the businesses to which they hope to return with the overall health of our public finances. We would not be able to supercharge our economy after this Budget without the support we have received through the pandemic.
My constituency of Southport has already seen much support from this Government; 13,000 local jobs have been protected through furlough and other support schemes, and around 1,600 businesses have been supported with grants and business loans totalling £7.8 million. There has been a huge impact on our retailers. In addition, a third of businesses in my constituency are in the hospitality and tourism sector, so the support has been vital, and the Budget for after lockdown will provide for more.
In the Budget, the Chancellor extended the business rates holiday, which has been widely welcomed. Tapering the support will mean that businesses face no cliff edge, and, as we unlock, footfall and revenue will rise, allowing for a more gradual move back to normality. The 100% rates relief until June, which moves to two thirds for the rest of the year, provides not only support, but certainty. I hope that this will continue into the future, until we reform business rates in line with the challenges faced by online competition.
I also welcome the extension of the VAT cut, which will help to protect almost 7,000 jobs in hospitality and tourism in my constituency—an industry that has been the hardest hit. Extending the 5% reduced rate of VAT for a further six months until the end of September and then tapering from October, will not only mean that there is also no cliff edge here; it will allow the sector rapidly to recover. Of course, the most important point about the reduced rate of VAT is that if people pay for their hotel room in Southport before October, they will get the 5% rate, not the rate when it goes back up; that is something to remember.
The most important announcement by far for my constituency was the town deal worth £37.5 million. It is the biggest direct investment in a generation, and will be transformational. We have already had £1 million of accelerated funding, which has seen the main street in my town, Lord Street—as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker—become a boulevard of light. We have also seen some revitalisation of our market. Our existing tourism and hospitality sectors will be enhanced with a range of projects, including a theatre and convention  centre; this will be truly spectacular, bringing an extra £25 million to the local economy. We believe that further business and innovation projects will bring another £400 million of private sector investment.
In short, after hearing his Budget, I think that my constituents are protected, our town is supported and our future is more secure.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this vital Budget debate. This Government are endangering our NHS through their lacklustre approach to the coronavirus pandemic, hospital services and the social care crisis. Last Wednesday, it was clear that there is no plan for a recovery in NHS finances. In fact, the NHS was only mentioned once during the Chancellor’s entire speech.
During the pandemic, nurses and NHS workers have gone above and beyond to contain this hideous disease. Their sacrifice has been immense, which makes the 1% pay increase offered by the Chancellor all the more insulting.
Like the PM, I suffered and was saved by brave frontline staff. Having received world-class care himself, the PM and his Government cannot be so miserly and must reward our NHS heroes with a substantial pay rise.
In my own constituency, after years of dedicated campaigning by local Members of Parliament such as myself, we saw off the “Shaping a Healthier Future” programme. However, its toxic legacy lives on. Ealing Hospital has lost full A&E services, which we badly need. We have lost our maternity ward and we have lost in-patient paediatric care. The closure of the maternity unit in particular—where my own grandchildren were born—has been very harmful to my community. The Government must put their money where their mouth is and properly fund our NHS, and level up areas such as mine, with a densely populated and fast-growing population.
Finally, I want to speak about social care services, which at present are in the midst of a severe crisis. Some 40,000 older people have tragically died in care homes since the beginning of the pandemic, yet, in the Chancellor’s speech last week, there was no mention of social care. The Government have nothing to say to the hundreds of thousands of older people, neglected by a broken system that denies them the care that they so desperately need.
Instead of papering over the cracks, as this Budget does, I urge the Government to tackle these inequalities head on, properly fund social care and give NHS staff the pay rise they truly deserve. Only then will the Government be able to say that they are truly committed to levelling up our society, ensuring that no one, regardless of their wealth and background, is left behind.

Siobhan Baillie: Balancing people’s health, saving lives and supporting the economy is an unenviable and complex task. While there are certainly a few areas that still need attention, I believe the Chancellor produced a Budget that supports people, begins to fix the public finances and looks to the future.
I am regularly told in Stroud that furlough has saved businesses. In the first lockdown, Stroud District Council gave out £26 million of Government money in grants. There are more than 4,000 businesses in Stroud. Additional funds have been paid out since.
Skills, reskilling, further education and colleges are going to be integral to the future of our country—I am pleased to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber today. I would like to see green apprenticeships and green-collared work and all of that worked through. We have a White Paper and I am so pleased that the Budget recognised the importance of this area.
I have already been speaking to community groups about the £150 million community ownership fund. I hope we can use funds such as that to support Rush skate park and other sports clubs, and really think about how to use those Government funds and the Government desire for communities to thrive. I know that Stroud communities will be there with their hands up.
The investment in our future through the environment cannot be understated. Stroud will be putting a bid into the fusion STEP programme—the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production programme. There is a chance to be the world’s first fusion power plant; Berkeley and Oldbury and the south-west want to be first in line.
We also need to look to the wetlands—Slimbridge wetlands. We have put together a blue recovery plan for carbon storage and for wellbeing and for everything that we already have on our shores. I say again: please, green investment and private investment for the green stimulus.
It is important to learn from the devastating impact of covid. Businesses have come to me and said that they did not feel heard and understood. They feel that they were shouting into the vacuum. We have to learn from that. I will give a few headlines. The leisure, gyms and heath sector has skilled experts who are going to look after our health, mental health and wellbeing, yet there was no VAT reduction for them and grants were refused. Classes were banned. Some of the road map does not allow them to thrive. These people can help our minds and our health.
I have met many businesses in the wedding sector that have struggled. They are predominantly female-led. Again, the road map does not allow them to step up and work, and there are arbitrary figures for guests—five, six, 15 and 30 people. They can actually go back to work. Let them work. Let them pay back into the economy.

Marion Fellows: I am in no doubt that the Chancellor’s Budget will result in the continuation of Tory austerity for those on the lowest incomes, especially disabled people and children. During the global pandemic and health crisis, people have been denied vital support to ensure a dignified standard of living. Like successive Tory Governments, this Tory Government are entrenching class inequalities, which weigh heavily on people’s lives.
I welcome the extension of the universal credit £20 uplift. However, those receiving it face a sudden £1,000 cut to their incomes in six months’ time. The Chancellor must provide people with certainty and agree to make the uplift permanent. People claiming legacy benefits will not even see the £20 uplift; 60,000 Scots, including  20,000 children, will be left in poverty and forced to choose between heating and eating in a cynical attempt to force people on to universal credit, which could leave many worse off and facing a gruelling wait of weeks for their first payment. That means that 2.5 million people across the UK, 1.9 million of whom are disabled, are being denied that support.
Being disabled incurs ongoing costs. The disability price tag means that disabled people already pay a premium for normal living, but the UK Government have opted to deny them support to protect their standard of living and health at the time they need it most. Yesterday, I asked the Work and Pensions Secretary whether she had asked the Chancellor to consider extending the £20 uplift. Her answer was no. Refusing even to consider the £20 lifeline for those on legacy benefits is a complete dereliction of duty by this UK Government to the very people they are supposed to protect, particularly after anti-poverty organisations have been asking for the extension for 11 months. Instead, people claiming legacy benefits are being given a pathetic 37p a week extra. When the UK Government have stuffed billions into the pockets of their cronies for bungled contracts, it is clear whose side they are on.
The UK Budget was an all-round kick in the teeth for disabled people. There was no commitment to increasing statutory sick pay, no commitment to the real living wage and making it available for 52 weeks, no commitment to increasing funding for the Access to Work scheme to keep disabled people in work, and no commitment to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work with a real living wage. Whether people are working or seeking work, the UK Government have yet again failed to support them.
Coronavirus has exposed the deep inequalities that exist under this Westminster Government. People in Scotland—

Nigel Evans: Order. Marion, you are going to have to leave it there. I am terribly sorry, but we are out of time.

Damian Green: I congratulate the Chancellor on passing the first test of a successful Budget: it is now the last day of the Budget debate and the Budget is still intact. I have seen Budgets hailed on Wednesday, doubted on Thursday, excoriated on Sunday and reversed by Tuesday, so the Chancellor has passed his first important test.
Longer term, what will make this Budget a success is a rise in productivity, so the most important of the Budget documents published alongside the statement is the plan for growth. That is starkly revealed by the GDP forecasts from the OBR. The forecast is 7.3% next year, which sounds extremely encouraging, but after that we go back to a procession of 1.6% or 1.7%. Straight- forwardly, if we do not improve productivity, we will not improve those figures to 2-point-something or even higher, which is what we need to achieve, because if we do not, we will permanently suffer from pressure on public finances and public services. We know that it is not impossible to achieve that because, in some parts of the UK, we do. Some areas in the UK are 9% more productive than Germany at the moment. Other parts, sadly, are less productive than some other former communist economies of eastern and central Europe.
Levelling up—the central purpose of this Government —is not just a political slogan; it is an economic necessity. We need to do what we already achieve in some places in all places in the UK. Some of that will involve traditional infrastructure spending, and at this point I welcome the continuing support for the lower Thames crossing, which is essential for not only spreading growth but spreading traffic heading towards the channel into both Kent’s motorways, not just one.
Apart from physical infrastructure such as roads, bridges and broadband, equally important is human capital. For 70 years, the biggest weakness in our education system has been the relative neglect of vocational and practical skills. I am delighted that the ministerial team at the Department for Education are trying to rectify that, but that much used phrase about “parity of esteem” between academic and vocational qualifications will just be lip service if we carry on making more careers graduate-only for entrants. Why on earth have we done that for the police?
We also need to level up on health because the disparity between healthy life expectancy is not just bad for those involved; it is a drag on our economic growth. Also, we need innovation, particularly in green products and sectors, which we will need to lead the world on. Overall, I congratulate the Chancellor on a balanced Budget that meets one nation ideals and purposes by aiming to bring the whole UK on to a higher growth path.

Holly Mumby-Croft: In 2019, this Government were elected to deliver on their promises to level up towns like Scunthorpe. We could not have imagined then the challenges that would befall the country. As we move towards what we all hope will be better days ahead, alongside that recovery and support, it is still the job of this Government to keep the promises they made to towns like Scunthorpe, where local people put their faith in MPs like me, knowing that we have a shared stake in our town’s future.
That is why last week’s Budget was so important to Scunthorpe. It is one thing to tell local people that we will keep our promises and that we will invest, improve and truly level up places like Scunthorpe; it is another to show them. In addition to over £10 million of Government investment in our high street, I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s Budget announcement committing a further £21 million of proper new money to Scunthorpe via the towns fund. I worked on our bid with our excellent board and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). We were ambitious to bring forward projects that would benefit local people in both Scunthorpe and surrounding towns and villages—projects that would raise our whole area, not just the town centre.
In addition, the Budget announced the exciting approval of our bid for a new Humber freeport, which will make a huge difference to North Lincolnshire and the whole Humber region. Along with Members on both sides of the House, I have seen the potential benefits of freeports and supported the project, which will create jobs and investment. The freeport will include a customs site at British Steel—further evidence of the Government’s support for the industry.
This Budget also recognises the many businesses in Scunthorpe and the incredibly tough time that they have had over the last year. I want to thank those  businesses in my constituency that have worked with me and taken the time to talk to me about their views and give me their insights, which we have been able to feed back to Government. In these tough times, the Budget will give those businesses more certainty and not only protect jobs but create new jobs in our area. The excellent kickstart scheme has already attracted interest from over 100 local employers.
With the towns fund, the investments we have seen over the last year and a freeport agreed, the Government have finally aligned the stars and recognised Scunthorpe for what it actually is: the ideal place for businesses to invest and grow, a great place to live and an area of our country with fantastic potential. I look forward to seeing those promises for Scunthorpe delivered.

Giles Watling: [Inaudible.]

Nigel Evans: You are on mute, Giles. If you don’t mind, we will take Andrea Leadsom straightaway. We hope we will get back sequentially. We will be back with you, Giles, I promise.

Andrea Leadsom: I am full of praise for the Chancellor’s work to protect jobs and businesses as we emerge from lockdown, and I support the measures he announced in the Budget, but I also urge him to give even greater focus than he has done to the prospects for our green economy.
In my stint as Business Secretary, I rewrote the Department’s objectives, so that its top priority was for the UK to lead the world in tackling global climate change. On the one hand, there is no doubt that that is the right thing to do—the future of our planet keeps far too many people awake at night. However, on the other hand, building a green economy also makes superb business sense for the UK.
First, the UK is at the forefront of developing green technologies: from offshore wind to nuclear fusion and green hydrogen, we are leading the way. Secondly, the UK has more than 450,000 people in the green collar workforce already. In my time at BEIS, I was confident that a target of 2 million green jobs by 2030 was possible. The particular beauty of the green economy is the breadth of employment opportunities—from apprenticeships in solar power to decarbonisation of heavy industry to cutting- edge scientific discoveries, there is something for all talents. The UK’s green economy could become a bigger jewel in our crown than UK financial services is today, and I urge the Chancellor to share that vision.
COP26 is a great platform, and we need radical action with world-changing initiatives, so I want to put forward three specific ideas. The first is to announce at COP26 a yearbook in which the Paris agreement signatories can record their Government, state and business-level achievements—transparency so that all can see and challenge, while the discussion continues over the more formal measurements.
The second idea is to announce at COP26 three ambitious bilateral commitments to decarbonisation by 2030. The UK can be a key role model, and those pledges could include, for example, working with India  on delivering 100 GW of battery storage around the world, with China to deliver 200 GW of offshore wind, and with Brazil, say, to deliver 0.5 billion hectares of new woodland around the world.
The third idea is to announce at COP26 a global green investment bank. Our former rock star central banker, Mark Carney, is now the Prime Minister’s green adviser, and he should be pulling together the global pensions industry, project financing and green investment expertise to work together on financing the decarbonisation of our planet.
As one of the great heroes, Sir David Attenborough, has said,
“real success can only come if there is a change in our societies and in our economics and in our politics.”
The UK has the chance post Brexit to lead that change.

Nigel Evans: Very professionally done, as we expected, Andrea. Thank you for helping us out. I think our comms are now back. Let us see if we have Barry Sheerman.

Barry Sheerman: Thank you so much, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am, I think, unmuted.
First, I thank my constituents, not only for sending me back to Parliament yet again, but for being so forthright in what they want me to do when there is a Budget speech. I have been present at many Budgets and spoken in most of the Budget debates; I am a bit of permanent feature. I have seen a lot of aspirant merchant banker types—the George Osbornes who come and do their bit on the Front Bench and then go on their way to the next stage in their career. I just hope that this time, this merchant banker, who is the wealthiest Member of Parliament we have ever had, will stay the course. I do not usually trust merchant bankers because I trade as an economist and I would prefer an economist’s view of our country’s future.
My folk in Huddersfield tell me that what they want is pretty simple: good jobs on good pay, a good health service, a good education service, a clean environment, and a modernised welfare state that is up to date. One of the things this country can be proudest of is a welfare state that really looks after people when they are sick or out of work. The covid crisis has pointed out to us that there are some severe deficiencies in our welfare state. If someone is thrown out of a job and has no employment, the support and the income they get are dramatically lower than in most of our competing nations. This Budget should have addressed that, bringing the NHS up to date—I will not even go into the shameful 1% pay rise that is in fact not a pay rise—and looking thoroughly at equipping it for the future after it has been systematically cut and cut again since 2010, but also looking at the welfare state in its entirety.
Many people have talked about the green economy. Our good science, good technology and good manufacturing have meant that we have sorted covid and we are winning against this global pandemic. Now we have the science, the technology, the partnerships and the manufacturing capacity to set about saving our planet from climate change and global warming, so let us do that. This Budget should have taken a lead. It should have shown passion, partnership and a real  ability to build relationships that work. I only hope that this Chancellor will stay on and do a proper job for a change.

Nigel Evans: We will now see if the technology and science are going to bring us Kate Osamor.

Kate Osamor: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this really important debate.
The consequences of covid-19 have been disastrous for us, causing the worst recession of any major developed economy. The Budget was a missed opportunity to help to repair the damage caused by covid-19. This Government have used covid-19 and the Budget to hand out contracts to large corporations, funnel funds via the so-called towns fund towards the constituencies of Conservative Members, and cut public sector pay, universal credit and NHS funding. Meanwhile, in Edmonton, 5,000 of my constituents have lost their jobs in the past year alone, and the unemployment rate is now double the national average. Almost half the children in Edmonton live in poverty. Yet the Chancellor will cut the £20 universal credit uplift in September and continues to ignore the millions of disabled and sick people on legacy benefits who never received the so-called uplift. The UK welfare benefits system is one of the least generous in the developed world. This Government have torn holes in our welfare safety net. Sadly, too often, losing your job or falling ill means going hungry and losing your home.
Many leaseholders like those in Prowse Court in Edmonton listened to the Chancellor hoping that the Government would finally offer them the help they need to make their homes safe. There was not a single mention of cladding or building safety from the Chancellor last week. Instead, they are being left to foot bills they cannot afford while the property developers who profited from the Government’s unsafe cuts to building safety regulations walk away without paying a penny.
After more than a decade of austerity, my constituents in Edmonton needed a transformative Budget that would tackle inequality, rebuild the local economy, recover jobs, retrain unemployed workers and rebuild businesses to reflect a fairer society. We cannot go back to business as usual. This country and my constituents deserve better.

James Grundy: I welcome this Budget, not least because of the Chancellor’s extension of the support packages to assist businesses as we begin the transition out of lockdown. The extended furlough scheme and self-employment income support scheme will continue to be a vital crutch for businesses in my constituency, and the restart grant and recovery loans will ensure that businesses are supported well beyond the current road map timetable, helping to smooth the shift back to normal trading.
Another measure that my constituents and I were pleased to hear will continue was the extension of the freeze in fuel duty. Many of my Back-Bench colleagues and I stressed the importance of that to the Chancellor earlier this year. It will prevent increased costs for struggling commuters and businesses in Leigh during this crucial time.
Ahead of the Budget, local businesses in the hospitality sector contacted me to express the need for further financial support. While there are many existing schemes in place for them, I know that they were concerned about the potential rise in beer duty. Working alongside the Long Live The Local campaign and local pubs in my constituency, I heard at first hand just how important it is for pubs and the wider hospitality sector to be able to offer a cheaper pint and get customers back through the door. That is why I know the Chancellor’s decision to extend the beer duty freeze will be strongly welcomed.
While I welcome the extension of the business rates holiday until June and the fact that the vast majority of local businesses will see a temporary 75% cut in their business rates, my constituents are concerned that those measures will provide only a temporary fix to a more deeply rooted problem. In some of the more deprived communities in the north, business rates are so high as a proportion of earnings that businesses pay an effective tax rate of up to 70%, compared with 20% for those in the south. Businesses in Leigh are some of the worst affected in the whole of England, paying twice the national average. If we are going to keep our promise to level up those areas most affected by the pandemic and in need of financial support to thrive, we must reform business rates and create a system fit for the future.
As we move out of this crisis, we have an opportunity to ensure that, through our national recovery programme, we build back better. Again, I welcome this Budget. Although there is more to do, it will benefit businesses, families and the high street in communities such as Leigh as we exit this crisis.

Stella Creasy: A decade ago, we were told that austerity was a necessary response to borrowing £158 billion, and we have spent 10 years arguing about the damage done as a result: cost-cutting measures that cost us more than they saved—the bedroom tax springs to mind—the sluggish productivity that we have not dealt with, and the inequality that has grown worse as a result of focusing not on investing in people and their potential but on trying to pick winners and losers.
Now we are in a position where we are borrowing a figure double that and then some. The Chancellor tells us that he is being honest, but he is not being honest, and he is about to repeat the mistakes that were made in 2010. Austerity did not move our economy forward and it did not improve the lives of our local communities. We have the fourth highest death rate from covid-19 out of 132 countries. As Sir Michael Marmot has said, that is at least in part down to the pre-existing poor health in poorer sections of our local communities. What a damning indictment of austerity indeed.
Coming out of the pandemic, we cannot afford to make the same mistakes again, but that is exactly what is about to happen. The universal credit cut will see 500,000 children dragged into poverty. It is a 7% cut in incomes. Some people might say that 7% is not very much, but if that is the difference between waving and drowning, that is the impact this Chancellor is going to have.
The Government promised that nobody would lose their home as a result of covid, yet we know that half a million people are already in rent arrears, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said nothing about  that issue. We know that they plan to clobber nurses with a pay cut—because it is a pay cut when inflation is predicted to be 1.5%. It is going to cost us more, just as the bedroom tax did, because nurses are not daft. In London alone, we are paying £6 billion a year for agency staff, because we have NHS staff shortages. Nurses are going to work for agencies when they are not being paid properly. There is money there to be had.
It is right that we look at corporation tax rates. It is right that we do more on capital gains tax—after all, there are people trading shares in UK companies through tax havens who are not paying it. However, there is no point raising money if we are not going to invest in people, and the mums of this country know that most of all. Those who became a mum in the past year are one and a half times more likely to have lost their job than a dad. Our childcare sector is crumbling, with 58% of nurseries saying they cannot make it to the end of the term, but the Chancellor said nothing. We have spent the last 10 years dealing with the outcome of not investing in the people of this country. I urge the Chancellor to rethink and not do that again.

Jack Dromey: Erdington is rich in talent, but is one of the poorest constituencies in England. Levelling up matters, but it is not happening in Erdington. Our high streets fund bid was rejected. Services that have already been badly hit, from social care to street cleaning, are facing fresh austerity cuts. Twenty-seven nursery schools in the most deprived areas of the city now face closure.
We now have the proposed closure of the GKN factory in my constituency. GKN is one of the oldest engineering companies in Britain. It is 262 years old. It manufactured the cannonballs for the battle of Waterloo and helped build the Spitfires during the war. It was taken over three years ago by Melrose and now faces closure. There are 519 highly skilled workers who work in that plant.
What happened was utterly outrageous. Crucial now is what happens. If the company goes to the wall, 519 jobs go, but what also goes are many more jobs in the supply chain. That would be bad news for British workers and bad news for British manufacturing, because we would lose the capacity to make high-value components. Those jobs will be exported to continental Europe. That is why I welcome the constructive discussions that have taken place with the Secretary of State, and I say to him that the test of the Government in the next stages will be what they say and what they do, because the solution could be positive: avoiding the closure of that great historic marque with 50 years of manufacturing for the automotive industry.
In conclusion, on manufacturing more generally, we have 300,000 manufacturing jobs in the west midlands, which is the heart of England. There were some welcome moves in the Budget—of that there was no doubt—but they went nowhere near far enough, because if one looks at our continental competitors, their Governments are investing on a grand scale, far in excess of what is happening in our country. For example, the French Government are putting £15 billion of investment in aviation and automotive. That is four times more than what is happening in this country. Sixteen gigafactories  are being established in continental Europe, but there is just one in our country, and we hope the second one will be at Coventry airport.
Much more needs to be done, because manufacturing is key to the recovery of our economy. It is key to the recovery of Britain. The Government have gone nowhere near far enough. What they need to do at the next stages is to back British manufacturing.

James Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). In what are extremely challenging circumstances, I commend this Budget for meeting so many of the immediate and longer-term needs of north Wales. The extension of furlough for the employed and self-employed, the continued VAT reduction for hospitality, holiday accommodation and attractions, and the freezing of alcohol duty are all welcome measures that provide security, particularly for the hospitality and tourism sectors during what we hope are the final stages of the pandemic.
Those sectors are extremely important in a constituency such as the Vale of Clwyd. In addition to the Chancellor’s Budget measures, there is a desperate need for the Welsh Government to publish a road map out of lockdown to align with the clear measures set out by the Prime Minister. The medium to long-term commitments that the Chancellor has made will provide the boost that is needed to address local pockets of deprivation and to ensure levelling up in more general regional economic performance.
The Budget included funding that will provide tangible benefits to my constituents. Denbighshire County Council is a direct beneficiary of the Budget, receiving £125,000 of capacity funding from the levelling up fund and an additional £20,000 for similar purposes from the community renewal fund. These programmes open up the possibility of many millions of pounds of support for the county within the next year or so to promote local regeneration. I look forward to working with the council to secure a turnaround in the fortunes of Rhyl high street, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), to see investment in other town centres in the area. I also welcome the community ownership fund, which has the potential to be a major boost for all those who desperately want the Belle Vue ground to remain the home of football in Rhyl.
It was announced at the Budget that the north Wales growth deal will be reprofiled, with funding being brought forward from 15 years to 10 years. This will mean an extra £4.4 million per year from this April for nine years. It is hoped that this investment will create 3,800 new jobs and deliver a £2.2 billion boost to the local economy. This deal alone is set to help redevelop the former North Wales Hospital in Denbigh, support high-value manufacturing in St Asaph, and boost digital connectivity and green energy projects.
As we bounce back from the coronavirus, this transformation of our local communities and economy will be very welcome. I sincerely hope that, in the months ahead, these measures will be matched with further commitments to boost regional rail infrastructure, and I very much look forward to the findings of Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review. I am confident that  this Budget puts north Wales and the whole of Britain in a strong position to recover and grow following a particularly challenging year for us all.

Kenny MacAskill: Freezing alcohol duty rates is fine for alcohol producers, but not so good for Scottish publicans. Before covid, there was a drift from on-sale to off-sale consumption both north and south of the border. Something like 75% of sales were for the latter, predominantly in supermarkets, and now it will be even more.
Even once lockdown eases, will people return to their old local or to their pub, or will attitudes change further? Some might say it does not matter, but I actually think it does, and not just for publicans but for communities. It is a difficult time for the licensed trade, but it is also a difficult time for others in our communities. Pubs are community assets in towns as well as in rural parts. We have seen the demise of the country pub, but we now face that on the high street. Dealing with closed shops and what to do with them is difficult enough in towns and villages, but dealing with a pub that is even larger will be much harder, yet that is what we face unless action is taken.
Pubs are also places of supervised consumption. It is much better to have people drinking alcohol where there are ways of ensuring that their behaviour is monitored. Likewise, people’s measures are much more liberal when they are pouring for themselves, rather than having a publican pour them. Indeed, alcohol consumption health-wise, as well as justice-wise, is probably better done in supervised premises. That is why the failure to take any action in the Budget is rather shameful and will harm communities as well as the trade.
We have seen a proposal from the Social Market Foundation that would have allowed for a variation in alcohol duty rates, loading a modest increase on to the off-sale trade to ensure that there could be a reduction for the on-sale trade. That would help keep pubs alive, but it would not reduce the burden required for the Exchequer. Indeed, as I say, given the profits made by many supermarkets, it would probably be seen by most as legitimate and entirely acceptable.
Similarly, there are other attitudes that can be taken on VAT. Italy has reduced VAT on alcohol in pubs and restaurants. Again, that could be revenue-neutral by encouraging increased consumption, but consumption that is better done in a supervised manner, keeps a local asset and maintains a viable business, rather than having people buy tranches of alcohol from supermarkets at discounted prices. That is why, as I say, this has been a missed opportunity.
Pubs are vital for our communities. They are assets, and we have to take steps to support them with either a reduction in VAT, as in Italy, or indeed the more radical steps of the Social Market Foundation, which I would support, to try to secure alcohol being taken in supervised premises, as opposed to simply sold en masse by super- markets at discounted prices. Actions have to change, and this has been a missed opportunity for the pub trade.

Giles Watling: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for stepping in as my understudy earlier. Unsurprisingly,  this Budget is all about holding the line and keeping things alive so that when we do emerge, blinking, into the sunshine of a bright new future, this nation is prepared to take its rightful place at the centre of the world’s stage. It is about keeping working people going so that we do not bleed talent away. It is about maintaining our structural heritage so that everything from the mightiest theatre to the smallest village hall is ready to throw open its doors to re-engage with our communities. It is about supporting businesses, large and small. It is also about delivering all this in a cost-effective way so that our children, and our children’s children’s children, are not lumbered with a totally unmanageable debt.
It is also worth remembering that it was only in 2015 that George Osborne announced that we were to make the final payment on the loans for the first world war. With the coronavirus outbreak, we have now entered similar unpleasant territory. With well over a third of a trillion pounds already thrown at the management of this terrible pandemic, we must tread cautiously. We must keep things going until our economy can stand on its own two feet once more. Then we must build that economy so that through the efforts of the people of these islands, this massive debt is reduced rapidly and is manageable for future generations.
With all that in mind, I am happy to support the Budget, as it delivers significant value to my constituents and helps our businesses through the end of lockdown. Importantly, to my mind, this Budget extends and ends the furlough scheme in a very sensible way. Many residents in Clacton will be dependent on furlough. The scheme currently supports 880,000 jobs in the east of England. The scheme is also protecting jobs: only 10% of local businesses have been forced to lay off someone because of the pandemic, according to the results of a covid recovery survey that I ran recently. That is why I have always believed that furlough needs to be in place until restrictions are fully lifted, and the tapered ending is the right approach, which will help businesses to manage costs after reopening. Alongside furlough, I am pleased that 600,000 new claimants are now eligible for self-employment income support schemes. It is right that we deliver these two new grants in this financial year.
One of my major concerns is the fate of the freelancers who have so far fallen through the cracks of the support schemes, unable to access them, so I hope that these changes will be of benefit to them. Many of those freelancers are of course involved in the arts, and I am sure that they will appreciate the additional £408 million to help that sector recover, but as I warned in my speech last week, we must ensure that that support remains in place even after restrictions are lifted. One note of warning: if we do not support the creative sector—the fastest-growing sector—we will have a hard job indeed getting out of this economic nightmare.

Chris Evans: During the run-up to any Budget, there is much chatter about the rate at which Government set taxes—too high and we run the risk of choking off growth; too low and the national debt will rise to unmanageable levels. What is very rarely asked, however, is how taxpayers’ money is spent. A taxpayer has a right, when they hand over a proportion of their hard-earned wages, for that money to be spent in a wise and prudent manner by the  Government. However, the facts and evidence, as presented by the independent National Audit Office, show that this is simply not the case.
From April 2017 until the end of 2020, central Government Departments have recorded at least £5 billion in accounting losses. This is an incredibly high figure of wastage. For example, HMRC racked up over £470 million in departmental losses from 2017 to 2020. It gets worse: according to HMRC’s own planning assumption, total fraud and error arising from the coronavirus job retention scheme cost anything in the region of £2 billion to £3.9 billion. So far, only £10 million has been recovered and any more is unlikely to be claimed back.
To put that into perspective, Saffron Cordery, the NHS Providers deputy chief executive, said that building a new, average, mid-sized hospital costs around £500 million. This means that the £5 billion in accounting losses over three years could have built 10 new hospitals. Given the strain that we have seen on NHS resources this year, I am sure that an extra 10 hospitals would have been appreciated by many communities across the country.
The new Grange University Hospital has just been built near my constituency by a Welsh Labour Government. The hospital has a specialist critical care centre, a top-range cardiac suite and 30 individual intensive therapy unit rooms. It was even able to open four months early to relieve pressure on the NHS during the pandemic. All of that cost £350 million.
Let me tell the House what else was over £300 million: the total losses for the Department for Work and Pensions departmental group. That was in one year alone. I cannot speak for other Members in this House, but I certainly know what I would rather have taxpayers’ money spent on and it is certainly not fraud and error. All that money should be spent helping the people of the UK to recover from the effects of the pandemic and not wasted on departmental error. We owe that to the British people. It is their money. Let us spend it wisely.

Jane Stevenson: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to respond to last week’s Budget. I certainly do not envy the Chancellor having to set the Budget during a global pandemic which has had such a devastating effect on our economy. This is a pragmatic, responsible Budget that maintains the commitment to levelling up and aims to speed up our economic recovery. There were undoubtedly some difficult choices to make, but they must be measured against the whole economic picture rather than as single issues. Small pay rises for some must be viewed against more than 1 million new jobseekers, those who have lost their businesses, and those surviving on reduced furlough wages.
Helping people back into work must be our first priority. That is why I applaud several measures in the Budget that highlight the Chancellor’s ongoing commitment to protecting and creating jobs: schemes like Help to Grow, which will offer MBA-style management training and also help businesses to develop digital skills; the creation of freeports, including two that will help to fire up our midlands engine; the extension of furlough; the VAT cut to the hospitality industry; and more money for apprenticeships.
There are many measures, but I especially want to mention something that will benefit my home city. This is where we see real change and a real plan. Without resorting to the school assembly stalwart of giving a man a fish or a fishing rod, the Government’s investment in Wolverhampton has given our city a clear plan to a better economic future. The Budget announced not only a successful £25 million towns fund bid, but we will benefit from £10 million of investment for a taskforce into modern methods of construction. This will be based at a new Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government headquarters in Wolverhampton. This all links to the £15 million the Government invested in our National Brownfield Institute, which sits next to our School of Architecture at Springfield brewery. The Government’s investment means Wolverhampton will be the home of the green home building industry and all the jobs and opportunities that that will bring in over the coming decades.
This vision for Wolverhampton is worth so much more than just the funds the Government have provided. Moving a Ministry away from London proves the commitment to levelling up. I would like to say this to the Leader of the Opposition: I know today’s Labour party is more Wandsworth than Wolverhampton, more Balham than Bilston and more Willesden than Wednesfield, but moving Government Departments away from London is not giving up, it is giving hope: hope to our local economy and hope to the thousands of people looking for work in my constituency.
I commend the Budget, and I commend the Chancellor and the Government, who are committed to changing life chances and giving better opportunities to people around the United Kingdom and in my wonderful home city of Wolverhampton.

Rosie Duffield: For that last 10 years, we have been told that austerity was the only way: local governments operating on a shoestring budget, services cut to the bone, councils managing on the bare minimum, charities closing, no money available for specialist women’s refuges, and mental health provision at crisis point, with children waiting up to two years for even the most basic initial assessments. During that decade, child poverty soared, homelessness stopped being noticed, widening gaps just kept on widening, and public sector workers suffered from a pay freeze that never seemed to start to thaw.
We know that the majority of people using food banks are actually in work—the working poor. Many of those are the nurses who, by this Budget, have once again been insulted. When our frontline NHS workers urgently needed protective equipment, did the Government respond by quickly securing it from tried and tested suppliers, or did they award contracts to those with absolutely no previous experience, wasting huge amounts of taxpayers’ money and leaving those frontline workers without adequate protection? When hundreds of nurses and doctors lost their lives, and many thousands of lives had been saved by their colleagues, the Government made sure they were clapping. They said some nice words and thanked them, but as our nursing force start to emerge from the real trauma they have faced this year, where is the Government’s respect? The insulting offer of a 1% pay rise, said to be the equivalent of £3.50  per week, does not even honour the basic starting point, which is legislated for, of 2.1%. So those nurses, who are literally making the difference between life and death for so many people, will be going back to food banks in between their gruelling shifts.
Those of us with many local hospitality businesses welcome any help available, and those of us able to bid for the levelling-up funds urgently to support our high streets, creative sector and tourism industry will gladly do so. However, we also note the opportunities lost to level up for the self-employed, the millions excluded and the public sector workers, and, yet again, the social care sector and our unpaid carers are left out. Women are also, yet again, at the bottom of the pile. The Women’s Budget Group can advise the Chancellor on how to change that with its expert knowledge. Those glossy photos of swish new Downing Street makeovers are a kick in the teeth to those excluded—the wedding industry, unpaid carers, and the very people who put their lives at risk to save ours. I urge the Chancellor to listen to the public outrage and think again about the insulting 1% pay rise for nurses.

Paul Holmes: This Budget delivers for all parts of the UK and it is the most important Budget for my constituency in years. The Secretary of State outlined the importance of levelling up and creating new industries, and that will certainly happen here in the Solent region, because levelling up is just not a tagline for one part of the country; as this Budget shows, it is for all parts of the UK. Levelling up and infrastructure improvements are about not just physical manifestations of infrastructure, but preparing the economy, and communities and industries that will prepare and propel Britain’s future.
The Solent region has pockets of deprivation left over by the old industries of the railways in Eastleigh town centre and the post-industrial past of Southampton’s docks. The announcement of the Solent freeport, which was opposed by the Lib Dem leader and pooh-poohed by the Labour party, will prepare our workforce for the future. We are talking about 52,000 jobs, the creation of decarbonisation industries, such as green maritime, green transport jobs and a world-leading sector in green energy. This will mean that £2 billion-worth of investment will be attracted to the Solent region and it will add £3.7 billion of gross value added uplift to the UK. This Budget is a shot in the arm for my region, which is often seen as economically developed, to ensure that the Solent region, my constituency and Southampton as a whole will have the world-leading recovery that we need.
The Government have recognised that need for my constituents, my region and the country, because not only does this Budget deliver the infrastructure needed to propel that future, but it puts in place some of the solutions to the problems that my region has had for decades. Such problems include three-generation unemployment, whereby people have not been able to get back into the workplace because the industrial heritage of areas such as Southampton and Eastleigh has not been worked on. This Budget does that, all delivered by a Conservative Government. The people of the Solent region have been given ambition and opportunity, and the Business Secretary, the Treasury and the Prime Minister should know that my constituents and I will grab that opportunity with relish.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Page 41 of the Conservative party’s 2019 manifesto in Wales guaranteed that Wales would
“receive at least the same level of financial support”—
from the UK—
“as it currently receives from the EU.”
That was a cast-iron, copper-bottomed manifesto promise. We also had endless levelling-up rhetoric and the UK Government singing the praises of the Union. What could possibly go wrong?
Fifteen months later, this Budget announced an array of competing, competitive and opaque Westminster-controlled funds, which undermine rather than enhance Wales’s economic strategy, and fail to honour this Government’s promises to Wales. The shared prosperity fund’s pilot, disingenuously named the community renewal fund, was allocated a mere £220 million to boost the entire UK, yet Wales alone received around £370 million a year in needs-based funding—I emphasis that it was needs-based funding—from Europe. This is not only a broken manifesto promise, but a broken promise to Wales.
Equally flawed is the levelling-up fund, which is being applied in the devolved nations in a way that is deliberately set out to undermine devolution. Both schemes entail UK-wide competition, rather than a needs-based system, which effectively and disinterestedly tackles the UK’s vast regional inequalities without fear or favour.
Welsh local authorities will now bid for funding from a smaller pot in direct competition with the entire UK. The consequences for economic planning are enormous. Instead of a Wales-wide economic development agenda, the UK Government have divided and, they hope, conquered Wales, by breaking our economy into 22 competing units. What makes that worse, of course, is that the UK Government have linked the success of these funds to representation by MPs. The Chancellor is therefore obviously not discomfited by whether Wales receives our fair share, since the Government are also cutting the number of Welsh MPs by a fifth.
It seems that this Conservative Government, not content with breaking promises and scorning need, are rigging the system to favour their own political interests, as both funds disproportionately benefit Conservative seats, including, appallingly, the Chancellor’s.
The Chancellor failed to present a coherent long-term strategy that complements Wales’s existing development agenda to improve the lives of Welsh people. Instead, he withdrew support, undermined our autonomy and prioritised his party’s interest. Wales does have a choice, though, and Plaid Cymru has a better plan—a strategic £6 billion recovery stimulus to make our economy fairer and greener. I urge the Chancellor to give us the tools to help ourselves and deliver a recovery that works for Wales.

Clive Efford: I wish the Chancellor had sat down and asked himself when he was writing his Budget what he needed to do to reduce the social and economic divide in the UK and how he would stop those who have done well during the epidemic doing even better in the recovery, while millions more are on a downward slope—the K-shaped recovery that we all want to avoid. The K-shaped recovery will not be avoided by a Budget that increases poverty.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation predicts that the cut in universal credit and tax credit will plunge a further 500,000 people into poverty, including 200,000 children. What we needed was a revision of the welfare state that will fit the needs of the gig economy and lift people out of poverty, not trap them in it.
During the recovery from the global banking crash, the Tories imposed 10 years of austerity on this country, cutting public services to the point where we struggled to respond to the covid crisis. The 120,000 deaths have not happened just by bad luck. The Tories changed, but their actions prove that their words are not what they intend to do. They claim to have found a Keynesian mojo, but if there is anything that exposes their façade and the same old Tory thinking, we need look no further than a derisory 1% pay increase offered to NHS staff.
A Government who were committed to renewing our NHS after the covid crisis would have made sure that we permanently filled the 100,000 vacancies that existed at its start. They would have made sure that we were recruiting the highest quality recruits into jobs in the NHS and retaining its highly qualified, dedicated staff. A 1% pay offer does none of those things. Instead, what we got from the Government were choreographed pledges for money to go to Tory seats and some rehashed policies on housing that will repeat the errors of austerity, fuelling another housing bubble, forcing first-time buyers out of the market.
The level of home ownership has gone down under the Tories at a time when borrowing is at an all-time consistent low. There are now 800,000 fewer people under the age of 45 who own their homes than in 2010. What we needed was a plan to decarbonise the existing housing stock. That would create jobs in every region. What we needed was a plan to build council housing and to upskill local workforces. Sadly, that requires thinking of which the Tories are simply not capable.

Nick Smith: May I welcome the Chancellor’s long-overdue announcement of an extension to the furlough scheme? This will help to avoid an economic cliff edge this spring. However, much more is needed, and our alternative Labour Budget would address the deep inequalities and injustices in the UK and take us forward to a stronger, more prosperous future. After covid, we need to rebuild the foundations of our economy for the long term by supporting new jobs across the whole UK; backing businesses as they recover, and protecting family finances.
We need new jobs in emerging industries, and we need them quickly. Yet the Government’s flagship policy, the kickstart scheme, is proving to be a failure. A business in my constituency applied to the scheme last September. It was keen to start giving opportunities to young people, but, months later, the application is stalled. That is not good enough. The process needs to work much more efficiently. Kickstart also needs to be paired with extra investment for places such as Blaenau Gwent.
The hospitality sector in particular has suffered and many have lost their livelihoods. Our Tradeteam logistics depot took a hammering last summer and 50 jobs were lost, with 50 families left in the lurch. They were well-paid,  unionised jobs and they will be missed. To build a new economy and support business, we need investment, yet we are still waiting for a well-funded shared prosperity fund. We need jobs, but we also need to help people get to jobs. I have written to the Chancellor previously about funding improvements to the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff trainline. Accessing the employment market, higher education and leisure is crucial to our valleys communities. Improvements such as this would be hugely beneficial to our economy. New train infrastructure and more frequent services need to be delivered in better time.
On protecting family finances, I will end on an issue that I have raised before in the House. In recent years, thousands of British Steel pensioners were ripped off by pension sharks and denied justice. I urge the Chancellor to look at the Financial Conduct Authority’s role in this crisis and to review its effectiveness in protecting consumers. After constant prodding, I think that it is time to reform this regulator so that it faces towards the whole of the UK, not just the City of London.

Ruth Edwards: This virus has dealt our economy its worst blow in 300 years, but I am confident that we will rise phoenix-like from the ashes. I am confident because our support has already protected more than 11 million jobs. I am confident because our economy is now expected to recover to pre-crisis levels six months sooner than predicted. I am confident because of the speed of our vaccine roll-out and, above all, I am confident because I believe in the ingenuity and hard work of the British people. That is not to say that there has not been a great cost. On a tour of a local business last year, the scale of the harm was brought home to me. The silence of its almost empty offices spoke louder than any words. That is why I am so relieved that the Chancellor has put jobs, both protecting and creating them, at the heart of this Budget: extending furlough and support for the self-employed and providing restart grants and recovery loans, but also setting the stage for our future economy through investment in towns and communities across our country, helping businesses to invest through the new super-deduction, and turbo-charging whole regions through a new network of freeports.
I want to highlight what the East Midlands freeport based at East Midlands airport, the intermodal rail park in Derbyshire and the Ratcliffe on Soar power station site in my constituency will do for people in the east midlands and for my constituents in Rushcliffe, because I believe that in debates such as this about big infrastructure projects, the very real benefits they will have for local communities are often lost in the noise.
At its heart, a freeport attracts more businesses, and more businesses mean more jobs—60,000 more jobs, in the case of the East Midlands freeport. The site at Ratcliffe on Soar in Rushcliffe will be the heart of our shift to a green economy, encouraging employers in green energy generation to locate on the site. Proposals for a new zero carbon research centre there, backed by six universities across the region, will be accelerated. Creating attractive career paths in growing industries will encourage more university graduates to stay in the region; currently only 17% do so. It is also good news for local businesses, which will form part of the supply chain for the building and infrastructure associated with it.
Successive Governments of all political colours have underinvested in the east midlands. Today marks a change. The Budget represents the biggest Government investment in the east midlands for a generation, so I will be proud to vote for it tonight.

Kate Hollern: After 10 years of Government cuts, Blackburn is one of the most deprived towns in the country. We have been under additional restrictions for longer than almost anywhere else. Our high street has been decimated, and going into the pandemic, Blackburn’s health outcomes were some of the worst in the country. So it is right that Blackburn has been identified as a high priority for the Government’s levelling up fund, and I look forward to working with the council on the further development of the exciting plans for the borough to recover and grow.
Having read the fine print of the Government’s self-styled levelling-up agenda, though, I must say I am disappointed. I am concerned that the money is not going to all the right places. Some is going to the Chancellor’s constituency, where multimillion-pound houses are on sale, yet deprived areas like Halton and Salford—both identified as being in the top 20 local authorities—are not so fortunate. There is clearly something wrong with that, so I ask the Minister what level of involvement Ministers have in choosing winners and losers, and whether the Department will share with the House the formula that the Government use to allocate funding.
My next issue is with the Government forcing regions to compete with one another. If the Government really want the regions to recover, all regions should get their fair share of investment. It must mean that the Government accept that places like Blackburn are starting from a lower base and will recover more slowly, and therefore the Government must put more into the most deprived regions to unleash their potential. The Government also need to recognise that the funding announced in the Budget does not come anywhere near the £15 billion that has been cut from council budgets over the past decade.
The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) boasted about what successive Tory Governments had done for Lancashire. He failed to mention that Lancashire councils have faced, on average, 45% cuts in the last decade. That is not levelling up Lancashire—it is levelling down, particularly in public services.
Briefly, for the sake of time, my final issue is with the Government’s double counting and the smoke and mirrors strategy they deploy. Half of the £6 million being handed out to councils this coming financial year as part of the levelling-up fund has been reshuffled from towns fund funding. The £150 million budget of the pinch point fund announced in 2018 has now been assumed into the levelling-up fund, and £175 million for freeports has also been redistributed. So when the Government talk about a £4.8 billion levelling-up fund and a £3.6 billion towns fund, they need to be honest about the fact that they are playing musical chairs with old money in many cases.

Natalie Elphicke: This Budget puts in place the framework for a steady economic revival, and provides a strong package for my constituents  in Dover and Deal. The recent pandemic has seen thousands of jobs at risk in the ferry, port, retail, hospitality and tourism businesses on which my area depends, so I strongly welcome the range of continued support, including the extension of the self-employed income support scheme and the £5 billion in restart grants, which will help hard-hit businesses to get back on their feet.
The levelling-up fund provides an opportunity to strengthen and diversify. We are an area rich in advanced manufacturing and biotechnology, and we are ambitious to be strong in digital skills and the green economy. Priority 1 status and a £150,000 award in the levelling-up fund will ensure that we can put together the best bid possible for a further £20 million investment in our area. That is on top of the millions of pounds already earmarked for our future high streets fund bid and our proposed White Cliffs border control facility. These important investments will attract further opportunities for new jobs, businesses and prosperity.
As we look forward to making the most of these opportunities, there are also emerging economic risks that will fall hardest on less affluent areas, so we also need to look at a better deal for households and consumers. For example, Dover has the advantage of a high-speed rail train that connects to central London in an hour, but a season ticket costs over £7,000; that is around 25% of average earnings. To unleash the railway opportunity—whether that is high-speed Dover or the new HS2—rail tickets must be affordable within the context of the area and linked to average income. We should also introduce flexible tickets that are affordable for people who travel once, twice or three times a week. As we meet today, oil prices have surged recently and inflationary risks loom on the horizon. This risks consequent rises in energy, rents and other household and consumer bills. The Government’s commitment on fuel freezes is welcome, yet the transition to new fuel such as the electric car also needs to take place in rural and coastal areas.
In conclusion, this is a Budget that supports the areas hardest hit by the pandemic, and ensures a fairer share of investment and opportunity in the years to come.

Stephanie Peacock: Ten harsh years of austerity have had a huge impact on areas like mine. Barnsley Council has faced some of the worst Government cuts in the country, losing 40% of its income since 2010, so the concept of levelling up could be a very welcome one. The Government have described levelling up as their intention to address inequality and “level up” underperforming and left-behind parts of the UK, but this is simply not what we have seen; it is six days after the Budget, and the Government are yet to publish the criteria for the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. The Chancellor has previously stated that the fund would be allocated
“based on an index of economic need.”
That is curious when we consider that the Chancellor’s own constituency of Richmond in North Yorkshire is among the top fifth of the most prosperous places in the country, and currently the 251st most deprived place in Britain, and yet it is placed in the uppermost level for funding. Compare that to Barnsley, which is the 38th most deprived area in the country, but has been placed in level 2—behind Richmond—in the queue for funding.
Given that the Government are yet to publish the criteria, I would like to consider for a moment what those criteria could be. Let us begin with child poverty. In Barnsley East, 25% of nought to 15-year-olds live in poverty; that is double the figure of 12% in the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond. Let us move on to free school meals. There are over 3,000 eligible children in Barnsley East—double the figure of 1,500 in the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond. Let us look at unemployment, which in Barnsley is 6.6%; again, that is double the figure of 3.3% in the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond. Child poverty, free school meals, unemployment claimants—the list goes on. The statistics will continue to prove that Barnsley is clearly in greater need than the Chancellor’s constituency, yet Richmond is in line to receive funding ahead of Barnsley.
The fact is that, despite the slogan “levelling up” and whatever the criteria the Government eventually publish, they have chosen to allocate funding in a way that favours affluent areas over those of greater need. That is the simple reality, and it is not the first time. The towns fund was the same: 60 out of 61 areas picked by Ministers for the new funds were Conservative-held or Tory election target seats. The Government are pretending to give money to the communities that need it most when they are actually doing the opposite.
Areas such as mine have suffered greatly through this pandemic. An increase in unemployment and in-work poverty has led to a sharp rise in food bank use. The Government should admit that levelling up is no more than an empty slogan, or change the criteria and put the money where the need is greatest.

Virginia Crosbie: The 2021 Budget is a Budget befitting a Government leading the way in building back better post-Brexit and post-covid. On behalf of my constituents on Ynys Môn, I particularly thank the Chancellor for the funding he announced for the Holyhead hydrogen hub. The investment of £4.8 million will have a significant impact on Ynys Môn and will provide a major stepping stone in the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero.
The hydrogen hub is a pioneering project based on a hub-and-spoke model. It will kickstart a local sustainable hydrogen supply chain, and will form part of a connected network all across the UK. It will help to decrease carbon emissions, air pollution and noise pollution, and will set the scene for growth and green regeneration on Anglesey. It will initially create between 20 and 30 jobs, help to support more than 500 jobs in local businesses, and offer valuable local training and skills development opportunities. It makes use of existing electricity and gas infrastructure, with a capacity to scale up to diversify into a range of hydrogen markets, including heat, power and agriculture. It brings with it opportunities for cutting-edge innovation, which will in turn elevate the research and development work already being undertaken by Bangor University.
The project is the culmination of work by a number of important local and national employers, including Menter Môn, Stena, M-SParc, the Isle of Anglesey County Council and Coleg Menai. They should be saluted for their initiative and drive. It is that type of  project that will form the heart of Anglesey as the energy island, turning our local natural assets into green energy and once again crowning Anglesey as Môn Mam Cymru.

Ian Byrne: I listened to the Chancellor’s polished rhetoric last week and heard a man who knows nothing of and has never faced the dire circumstances that millions of people face in our nation today. This Budget offers nothing by way of a solution to the increasing levels of poverty and inequality in our communities.
The Independent Food Bank Network reported an increase of 88% in emergency food parcels between February and October 2020. Action for Children reported that 40% of families were struggling to feed their children. A Kellogg’s survey last week said that one in five schools now run food banks. In Liverpool, West Derby, we have seen a 100% increase in youth unemployment. Those are desperate, desperate statistics.
To combat that, we have a Government with a perverse interpretation of levelling up, and a Budget that shamefully denies a pay rise to public sector workers, cuts the pay in real terms of NHS staff, who are putting their lives on the line to protect ours, takes away the £20 uplift to universal credit from 6.5 million families in September, continues to deny an uplift in legacy benefits, and continues to deny justice to 4,889 of my constituents who have missed out on that vital extra support for the past year. It brings 1.3 million people into paying income tax for the first time, hits families with council tax rises of about 5%, and continues to exclude many from any Government support at all, including constituents of mine who have now gone without pay for 13 months. It also provides no support for the 700,000 households in rent arrears and those who face the threat of eviction.
Liverpool, West Derby and the nation need solutions to these grave issues. The images of hundreds of people queuing for food banks are now commonplace and they shame this Government. We need root-and-branch systemic change, but instead we have a Government tinkering round the edges of inequality with a garden strimmer.

Martin Vickers: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. My main reason for wanting to take part is to celebrate and praise the Government for this Budget. It has done a great deal to contribute to the levelling-up agenda and to overcome the north-south divide, which was a major plank of our 2019 election manifesto. In the past, cities and city regions have had much of the Government’s resources, and that policy was not necessarily wrong, but provincial towns such as Cleethorpes, neighbouring Grimsby and others in northern Lincolnshire could not benefit in the slightest from it because they have no immediate cities from which there could be a trickle-down effect. So it was right that we moved to focus on provincial towns.
I am delighted that the town deal, which has so far generated more than £100 million of investment into the area, has received another £21 million in the Budget. The town deal for greater Grimsby was actually the first; it was established in 2014 and involved a relationship between North East Lincolnshire Council and the private sector, led by local entrepreneur David Ross. That has moved forward, and it was acknowledged in the Government’s industrial strategy when it was published  in, I think, 2017, when the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), used the greater Grimsby deal as a platform for others that have followed.
I am delighted that the Humber ports have been given freeport status. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor published his report some years ago advocating freeports, I spoke to local businesses and to the port operator, Associated British Ports. I foresaw the advantages of freeports, so this is splendid. It is also important to acknowledge that the area is a major centre for the renewables sector, and I am delighted that the Government have invested more than £70 million in the Able marine energy park—something that the chairman of Able said would not have gone ahead without Government support. There has been criticism from the Opposition that the money is going to the wrong places. Take the Humber: I do not think there were any complaints from this side of the House when Hull got the Siemens investment. Now there has been an evening up. These are major moves forward, all of which I welcome. My thanks to the Chancellor.

Yasmin Qureshi: Last week, the headlines were screaming about levelling up, but nothing in this Budget helps my constituents. In the last 10 years, we have seen severe cuts that have caused child poverty of 40%, total unemployment of 10.5% and youth unemployment in parts of my constituency that stands at 30%. The recent cut of £20 in universal credit has caused more people to go into poverty. I think we all remember when the bus said £350 million for the NHS, but in reality its staff will get £3.50, which is an absolute insult. But it seems that the money tree has now been found, because £29 billion has just been given to test and trace, the discredited private scheme with links to Tory donors, and PPE contracts have been given by the Tory party to its friends. This Budget has done nothing to address what my constituency needs.
I want to talk specifically about housing. There was no real mention of housing in the Budget, apart from stamp duty and Help to Buy. My constituents need a house to live in. We need proper social housing. There are 9,000 people registered on the housing list to be accommodated, and everybody knows that decent homes help towards eliminating poverty and deprivation. Bolton at Home in my constituency does a tremendous job, but it needs support and assistance to be able to build more homes. The Leader of the Opposition said last week that this is a Beveridgean moment—a “fork in the road”. We face similar challenges to the ones we faced in the second world war, and we need a stimulus package similar to President Biden’s in the USA.
I welcome the extension of the furlough scheme to September. That is great, but there are 3.8 million self-employed people who have received no help at all through the pandemic. This Budget has failed to address the deep-rooted problems in our society such as deprivation and bad health indicators. My constituency is the 38th most deprived in the country. My constituency has been neglected over the last 10 years. I want proper funding to help the people of Bolton South East.

Simon Baynes: This is a very strong Budget for the Union. We are stronger as one United Kingdom. As a Welsh MP, I am particularly  pleased to see the extra £740 million for Wales in the Budget, and I only hope that the Welsh Government will spend that money in a timely fashion, rather than continuing their habit over the last year of holding back hundreds of millions of pounds of the UK Government’s support from those who need it most in Wales. This means that overall, the Welsh Government are receiving an additional £2.1 billion in the next financial year through the Barnett formula, on top of the baseline of £15 billion. There is also £300 million of funding outside the Barnett formula, in particular for farm support and fisheries.
Businesses in Clwyd South are very appreciative of the continued financial support outlined in the Budget, such as the extension of furlough and support for the self-employed, the recovery loan scheme and the extension of the reduced VAT rate of 5%. I am delighted that the Government are accelerating the three city and growth deals in Wales—in Swansea bay, mid-Wales and north Wales—by bringing £58.7 million forward in the investment programme. This means that the north Wales growth deal will get an extra £4.4 million per year from April for the remaining nine years of the deal, which will create up to 3,800 new jobs and support an uplift of £2.2 billion for the economy, as well as local regeneration projects—in the Wrexham area, for instance—amounting to £9.1 million.
That boost to the economy will be further strengthened by the newly announced levelling-up fund, which will be UK-wide and will bring at least £800 million for infrastructure projects in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and by the newly announced community renewal fund, which will provide £220 million of extra funding over and above the old EU structural funds to pilot programmes and new approaches in Wales and across the rest of the UK.
This Budget helps to cement the UK as a world leader in offshore wind, which is of great importance to north Wales. Following the measures included in the 10-point plan and the energy White Paper, the Government have shown that they are determined to deliver a green and cleaner economy. Many constituents in Clwyd South contacted me before the Budget about universal credit, so I was particularly pleased by the extension of the £20 per week uplift for a further six months. In conclusion, I strongly support this Budget, which shows that the UK Government have north Wales at the heart of their agenda and are leading the way in Wales on delivering for local communities.

Diana R. Johnson: Last week, the Chancellor spoke a lot about fairness and levelling with the British public, but does the Budget actually pass the fairness test? Even before the challenges of covid and Brexit, Hull had been hit hard by a decade of austerity after the global banking crisis, and that is why it was disappointing to see no real green industrial strategy, where the Humber could be central, and that the universal credit uplift was not made permanent to help hard-pressed families as council tax and other bills soar. There was also another real-terms pay cut for NHS staff, a £30 billion cut in day-to-day NHS spending from April, and still no sign of the Prime Minister’s talked-about clear plan for social care.
Hull is the fourth-most deprived local authority area in the UK, always high in social and economic indices measuring disadvantage, so how is it fair, consistent or  logical that Hull is excluded from the list of 100 priority places for the community renewal fund while it achieves priority 1 status for the levelling-up fund? The Government say that they look at measuring unemployment, household income, productivity, skills and population density, but the criteria have not been published, and perhaps are still being cobbled together in Whitehall.
This unfairness runs riot again with the towns fund. Of 45 towns and some cities chosen for funding, a disproportionate number—40—have a Tory MP. Hull was told that we are not eligible as we are a city. However, the city of Wolverhampton was awarded £25 million after electing two Conservative MPs, and last Thursday the Leader of the House confirmed that Hull, with three Labour MPs, will not be considered by Whitehall decision-makers even if we make a bid. That is not fairness. However, the winners from this gerrymandering should not celebrate too much as the towns fund is worth less than half the £2.4 billion that the Government had cut since 2010 from the funding of the 45 local authorities receiving it.
Even for the north’s favoured areas these pots of levelling-up funding will not be transformational. The infrastructure bank in Leeds will only provide loans and finance on a scale two-thirds smaller than the £5 billion per year from the European Investment Bank that it replaces, and there is growing doubt about whether Transport for the North will have the finance and clout to deliver on its promises.
There is just not enough pork in the barrel, and nothing like the sustained public and private investment that is needed for the real regeneration that we have seen over the last 40 years in places such as London docklands—all achieved without Whitehall insisting on permanent local government reorganisation. This was not a fair Budget for my constituents. Real investment in the Humber docklands seems no nearer.

Rob Roberts: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and to talk about a Budget that works for everyone and that will bring real investment in every part of the United Kingdom and begin to build our future economy. However, from the poor picture the Opposition have painted we would not believe that that was the case. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Chancellor was raising taxes based on the electoral cycle rather than an economic cycle and that raising taxes now means he will just cut them before the next election. Speaking of electoral cycles, the cynic in me might point towards the Welsh Labour Government sitting on about £1.3 billion in unallocated funds and wonder when they might actually get around to using them to provide the support that businesses in Delyn and across north Wales are so desperately asking for. Far from being politically churlish, the Chancellor has based his decisions on sound economics and has left playing games with the electorate to the Leader of the Opposition and his party.
Personal tax allowance has been frozen over the remainder of this Parliament and until 2026, hardly a populist move. Corporation tax only rises in 2023, a whole year before the next general election. Delaying the corporation tax rise and implementing the excellent  super deduction plan allows businesses to invest with confidence now, helping us build back better sooner and ensuring that we pay back the cost of the support schemes at a point when we have higher employment and a more stable economy.
A number of Opposition contributors have talked about the Chancellor’s brand, and I say to them that if they spent more time emulating the Chancellor’s brand, they might make for a more credible Opposition, because the only brand the Chancellor is cultivating is one of fiscal responsibility, backing business and supporting those most in need in our society.
Looking a little further along the shadow Front Bench, the shadow Chancellor claimed that only a Labour Budget would hand power to local communities. Again, I wonder whether she has read the Budget at all, as this is a programme that is clear on its commitment to levelling up every community, every town and every region, whether through the community ownership fund, which gives power to communities to buy much-loved local assets, or through the levelling-up fund, which will invest in vital local infrastructure projects. Every corner of the United Kingdom benefits, leaving no one behind.
This is a Budget that delivers for the whole Union, with Wales receiving an additional £740 million, and the north Wales growth deal being brought forward from 15 to 10 years, supporting that deal to create over 3,500 new jobs, with an uplift of 2.2 billion for the local economy in north Wales. It is a Budget that rightly has one eye on the present and one eye firmly on the future as we build back better.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: There are three aspects of this Budget that I want to address. The first is the short-term emergency measures to mitigate some of the economic effects of the pandemic, bearing in mind that the persistence of the virus is itself the fault of Government policy. Today Australia celebrates 10 straight days without a single domestic case of covid-19. All across the world, billions of people are living, effectively, without the virus. Cases and deaths have been reduced to a handful, or even zero, because they took effective measures to suppress it. This Government did not. So we have a public health disaster and an economic disaster. Countries that suppressed the virus have seen a relative hiccup in their economy and are now on their way to recovery. We, on the other hand, will suffer surging unemployment of up to 5.9%, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. This Government deserve no plaudits for being obliged to spend hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on measures to address a crisis they caused. We do not praise an arsonist because they called the fire brigade. This Government were even worse. For example, the second wave is widely seen as being the impact of the misconceived and reckless Eat Out to Help Out policy.
The second aspect is the long-term or structural elements beyond the emergency payments. These structural elements can be summed up in two words: vicious austerity, from every angle, that reduces the living standards of ordinary people, deepens existing inequalities, and provides unnecessary subsidies to big business. It is Robin Hood in reverse. Consider these elements of the Budget: a £4 billion cut to public spending on services, following a 5.7% cut in last year’s Budget; a £2 billion  hike in council tax payments; a freeze on income tax thresholds, which makes poor people pay more tax; and a public sector pay freeze, not to mention the exception of nurses’ pay—the insult of just 1%. Ministers tell nurses that there is no money left, but that is false. In the Budget there is a £27 billion tax giveaway to businesses, which the OBR says will have no lasting effect, and £37 billion spent on a useless private test and trace system.
The third and final insult is a Treasury Red Book that barely mentions inequality—in fact, just once. Yet again, no equality impact assessment was published alongside the resolutions, because even though equality is our law, to this Government it is expendable—an add-on—and policy after policy adversely impacts the most disadvantaged in our society. This Government are responsible for the scope of both the public health and the economic disasters, and this Budget widens both even further.

Elliot Colburn: I warmly welcome the measures taken in this Budget. I particularly welcome the super deduction, especially as last month I wrote for The Times Red Box calling on the Government to break down barriers to a green industrial revolution through the tax system, including by cutting investment taxes to help businesses to buy new cleaner technologies. The super deduction, by reducing a tax bill by 130% for businesses that are investing, will indeed boost investment and help businesses to make the transition to cleaner technology. I thank the Chancellor for listening to those calls.
I want briefly to touch on the support for families and businesses in Carshalton and Wallington. Throughout this pandemic, I have had many discussions and roundtables with individuals and businesses in my constituency, including dealing with well over 12,000 pieces of casework. The immediate and short-term financial support measures have been welcome, but what I especially welcome in this Budget is the recognition that reopening and bouncing back will not happen overnight for many. Measures such as extending furlough to September, extending the 5% VAT cut for six months, extending universal credit and working tax credit for six months, two further grants for the self-employed, ongoing support for food and holiday activity programmes, providing food, essential goods and laptops to those in need, and new recovery loans, will help families and businesses through the final months of the pandemic and on the road to recovery.
I want to briefly mention three support measures. After leading a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I warmly welcome the extension of the stamp duty relief, and I thank the Chancellor for listing to my calls to taper off the relief rather than stopping it overnight.
I also welcome the £700 million for arts, culture and sport. I hope that organisations in Carshalton and Wallington, such as CryerArts, Mitcham & Carshalton rugby club and Carshalton Athletic, will benefit.
Finally, I welcome the restart grants for hospitality, retail, leisure and personal care. Having held many meetings in Carshalton and Wallington with our independent stores, cafés, pubs, restaurants, hairdressers, salons and others, I knew the concerns they had about surviving to the point that they could reopen properly. I hope that this goes some way to alleviating those concerns. I would just add that I hope we can find a way of extending that support to the wedding sector—and I do not just say that as I am due to get married in July myself.
I thank the Chancellor for listening to many of the concerns that I have raised with him, and I welcome this Budget. I will continue to engage with families and businesses across Carshalton and Wallington to do whatever I can to help them through these last few months.

Andrew Gwynne: It is always good to be constructive, and there are certainly things to welcome in this Budget. The ongoing support for business and furlough is absolutely essential until the crisis is completely over. We heard this morning from the chief medical officer that we may face another surge, despite the amazing progress on vaccination. It is clear that we cannot take anything for granted, so it is right that that support is not ended prematurely.
I also welcome the fact that more people are now eligible for the self-employment income support scheme, but as I raised earlier today at Treasury questions, that still leaves millions without anything. That is an inconvenient truth that the Treasury has repeatedly failed to address, including through this Budget.
As with previous Budgets, a lot of the most significant bits are the parts that the Chancellor did not announce last week. He is forcing through a council tax hike—devolving blame seems to be the only devolution that the Government are interested in—and the decision on income tax allowances will hit the poorest hardest. That is a huge mistake, particularly as we emerge from the crisis.
There was also a missed opportunity to address the tax imbalance between online and high street retail. This is an accelerating trend that is destroying our town centres, and the pandemic has supercharged it. We may not have more opportunities to save the high street, so it is disappointing to see another one missed.
The Government talk a lot about building back better and meeting the productivity challenge, but I am not convinced at all that this Budget meets that challenge. Key to doing that will be rebalancing our economy, as imbalances between and inside regions are directly linked to productivity gaps. That is why tackling regional inequalities is so important. In theory, that is what levelling up is intended to do, but if this Budget is anything to go by, it is not clear that the Government have any real idea what they are doing with levelling up. Pork barrel politics, tokenistic moves and asking local areas to go to central Government cap in hand, rather than devolving power and decision making to regions and communities, is not levelling up.
Finally, our NHS staff deserve more than warm words and applause. The Government should put their money where their mouth is and give our fantastic NHS workers the kind of pay rise they deserve. The 1% on offer, a real-terms cut after the work that they have done throughout the pandemic, is an absolute insult. What the country needed was a bold Budget based on a credible strategy for economic recovery from the covid crisis, but unfortunately there does not seem to be a plan.

Neil Parish: I start by thanking the Chancellor and the Treasury team for the support they have provided throughout the pandemic, which is rightly continuing this year as we look to  recover from the pandemic. In particular, I am grateful for the new self-employment grant scheme, which will allow more than 600,000 people who became newly self-employed last year to access support, because they have really struggled. I have heard from hairdressers, driving instructors and tutors in my constituency who will benefit directly from that grant money. I also strongly welcome the restart grants of up to £18,000, which will help businesses to get going again, along with the 100% business rates holiday and the extension of the VAT cut to 5%. Cutting these taxes and providing cash boosts will help the many tourism and hospitality businesses, including hotels, pubs, caravan parks and wedding venues across my constituency, to recover.
In addition, I want to thank the Chancellor and the Work and Pensions Secretary for extending the universal credit uplift by six months. Although we have done so much to protect jobs throughout the crisis, there are still millions who will be relying on universal credit this year. We need to make sure we continue to properly support the vulnerable in our society. This pandemic has caused a lot of financial hardship too, and it is right that we reduce and spread the financial burden as much as possible.
As we build back better from the coronavirus, I, like the Prime Minister, want to see a green industrial revolution so that we use this opportunity to make positive changes to our economy. The new super deduction will allow companies to cut their tax bills by up to 25p for every £1 they invest in new machinery over the next two years, bringing forward capital investment and replacing older, dirtier machines with newer, more efficient ones. This is worth around £25 billion to UK companies and will kickstart an investment-led recovery.
I would be grateful, however, if the Minister on the Front Bench today could put forward my suggestion that new fishing boats qualify for that tax cut. Many of our fishing boats in the south-west are built in the north of England, so reducing taxation on new boats would help to create more jobs across the country, improving our fleets, saving on emissions and improving the safety of our fishermen at sea. This policy would be a win-win for our economy, much like the green homes grant that I believe will be extended and fully funded on a multiannual basis. If done properly, the green homes grant will deliver insulated homes, create skilled jobs, reduce heating emissions and save on household bills. So I urge the Minister to take that policy forward and create a green revolution not just for this year because we are hosting COP26, but for the next decade as we recover from covid-19 and work towards net zero.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Last week, the Chancellor spoke of being fair and honest with the public, yet 24 hours later it became very clear that he was doing neither. The worst example of that was the cowardly omission of the real-terms pay cut for our NHS heroes, people who have put their lives on the line day in and day out, who diligently turned up to save lives knowing that the Government had not provided them with PPE, and who have been the only comfort for strangers as they took their final breaths. They have been told that the public finances are under strain. This pitiful excuse might wash if they had not  seen £37 billion wasted on failing test and trace, if they had not heard the Conservative head of that failed programme defending wasting tens of thousands of pounds per day on consultants to help run this shambles, if they had not seen nearly £2 billion given to Tory friends and donors for covid-related contracts, or the half a billion spent on the Nightingales that did little more than provide some good PR for a poorly performing Health Secretary.
The fact is that the Government do not value our NHS. Their Benches are filled with those who vote time and again to cut the NHS and its workforce to the bone, forcing local hospitals to downgrade and promoting a privatised system of health and social care. It is not just the NHS they show disdain for, however. It is also whole communities who do not vote for them or share their ethos. It was noticed by people in South Shields and our surrounding areas that last week’s Budget offered zero investment in our infrastructure, jobs, schools or high streets. Levelling up is already proving itself to be as vacuous as the northern powerhouse was.
We are smart enough to see through the soundbites, the slogans and the rhetoric. When it comes to the levelling up fund, typically there is a lack of clarity regarding the formula and criteria for making the awards. What is clear, however, is that these funds will pit communities and regions against each other. At a time when we should be coming together, the Tories are again sowing division and fostering competition for small pots of money that will see a piecemeal and unequal recovery across our country.
For our local economies to survive they need local people with money to spend, yet just as unemployment is due to peak later this year, the universal credit uplift will be scrapped. Legacy benefits remain static, the benefit cap and the two-child limit remain, council tax is rising and key worker pay is frozen.
Our communities will never forget that, in the middle of a pandemic, this Government presided over one of the highest death tolls in the world, led us to the worst economic crisis of any major economy and used it as an opportunity to make money for them, their friends and donors. We will all have to live with the scars of this Government’s recklessness for decades to come and I will never give them a minute’s peace over it.

Flick Drummond: I am very pleased to be taking part in this debate today. This is a Budget that I believe will deliver security for my constituents in the short term, with the gradual lifting of restrictions, and in the long term, as our economy continues the steady growth and development it was experiencing before the outbreak began. I welcome the announcement of the Solent freeport, which will benefit constituents in the south of Meon Valley, many of whom work and live around Portsmouth and Southampton.
The Solent region, including parts of my constituency, contains some pockets of deprivation. While I accept the need to level up areas in the north and the midlands, there are definitely parts in the south that we must not leave behind. One of those areas is Waterlooville in my constituency, which is a good example of the hollowing out of town centres through changes in the way we live and shop creating a need for investment and redevelopment.
Waterlooville is a town that has vibrant growth around it, with new housing and more jobs coming. However, it has a struggling high street and the town centre is in need of redevelopment. That is not the fault of the businesses, which are trying their best, but the empty units now outnumber those that are occupied. The levelling up fund is exactly the sort of support many towns need, so I hope that Havant Borough Council will look at accessing national funds like the levelling up fund with me, so that we can drive real change. I also welcome the input by the Solent local enterprise partnership and Hampshire County Council, whose strategic view and input on transport will be important, since travel into and from the town centre is something that needs a rethink.
Reshaping the town centre can achieve a number of aims at the same time—economic development, of course, and a strong return on investment, alongside strengthening social cohesion and promoting green development in all aspects of urban design from transport to affordable housing. We can make Waterlooville in its totality a showcase for how a modern town centre can be redeveloped to meet the needs of people, where they can live, work and play without having to travel.
I will be asking all local stakeholders to contribute to this work and, as the MP, will do everything I can to support them. I will be asking the community what they want to see in their town centre and for ideas for regeneration. That includes our local schools, because projects like this take time and regeneration will shape the place where children grow up and live. They should have their say as well.
This is an excellent Budget, which offers potential for growth and regeneration. I hope it will bring greater prosperity to Waterlooville and all the communities that make up my Meon Valley constituency.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Can I say at the outset that I was very disappointed that the Secretary of State could not bring himself to mention Northern Ireland in any detail at all during his opening comments? Yet the economy and recovery of Northern Ireland as a Province have kept pace with the rest of the United Kingdom during the entirety of the last 10 years.
Covid has had an impact and we welcome the measures that have been introduced by the Chancellor. Some 250,000 jobs have been protected through the jobs retention scheme here in Northern Ireland, 210,000 people have been assisted through the self-employment income grant and 39,000 businesses have been helped by the loan guarantee scheme. That is a practical outworking of being part of the Union and part of the fifth largest economy of the world. Northern Ireland wants to play its part and it is right that we should therefore be mentioned.
Northern Ireland has had the added nightmare, of course, of coping with the Northern Ireland protocol, which poses more of a long-term, systemic threat to the Northern Ireland economy than the short shock caused by the covid crisis. The protocol must go and we welcome the steps in that direction that are being taken.
However, the Budget will be measured on how it delivers on the economic promises that it makes, especially the green revolution promises. For me, the measurement will be investment in the green economy of hydrogen.  The Prime Minister has set a target of 5 GW of hydrogen by 2030. I want to pose this question to the Front Bench: does the Secretary of State agree that the hydrogen strategy must marry supply with demand? The Government can kickstart this supply and demand approach by turbocharging their investment in 4,000 zero-emission buses and making at least half of these hydrogen buses. Combined with this, we must reform two things—the renewable transport fuel obligation and the bus service operators grant. These reforms will support bus operators to buy hydrogen buses made across the United Kingdom, and therefore unlock major investment and job creation schemes in green hydrogen production across all four parts of the United Kingdom.
In Northern Ireland, we would also of course welcome a cut in corporation tax, which would help us to outpace the tax haven that is the Republic of Ireland.

Sara Britcliffe: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In the most difficult economic circumstances we have faced for generations, the Chancellor has struck a careful balance between the difficult and necessary measures to recover our public finances from covid-19 and the need to protect the most vulnerable and the lowest-paid in society. From the support for businesses, the freezing of alcohol duty, the super deduction—my brilliant business of Emerson and Renwick told me this week that it was welcome news—to the continuation of the universal credit uplift, this Budget truly is a road map to recovery. This comes just after Hyndburn received £2.3 million from the Government from the public sector de- carbonisation scheme, which I called for very early on in my term, when we looked at our economic recovery and a green one to give Hyndburn and Haslingden the incentive to be at the heart of it—secured.
There is one aspect of the Budget I would particularly like to place a focus on today, and that is the levelling up fund. As many hon. and right hon. Members may know, my area has historically struggled to attract investment and has not been given the opportunities it has deserved. I was elected to change that. That is why the levelling up fund is so transformative for my area. I have spent a long time campaigning for the regeneration of my local high streets and for significant investment to be made in our town centres. The Prime Minister has supported my campaign and on a recent visit he reaffirmed that. The Budget begins to truly deliver on this not in the form of some temporary handout, as we have seen from previous Labour Governments, who have failed to invest in my area, but as an important part of building prosperity in our region.
With the whole of Hyndburn and Haslingden in the highest category for accessing the levelling up fund, we are now near the front of the queue for accessing this money. That means our chance to transform our area has now come. We need to work together to develop the bid and to ensure that the £125,000 is used most effectively. On top of this, Rossendale has been given extra funding from the community renewal fund. When I speak to residents in Haslingden, the same message is repeated, which is that they have been forgotten about and left behind. I want to change that and I urge Rossendale council to make sure that this is not the case any more.
I was sent to Westminster in December 2019 to make sure that our local voices were heard in Government. By lobbying the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, I have done all that I can to get our area into the priority group for investment and to get money to support it in putting forward a bid to the Government, which is what has been secured. Now it is time for our local councils to make sure that they truly take up this opportunity and develop a successful bid, so that we can make sure that our once forgotten towns truly are forgotten no more. I can certainly assure my residents that, while I am here, that certainly will not be done by me.

Sarah Owen: Healthcare for everyone, rich or poor, paid by us all through our taxes, not charity: 73 years on from Nye Bevan’s vision, our NHS workers are still breaking the mould and smashing records with the vaccine roll-out. The joy as people receive their vaccine—a step closer to hugging loved ones—should be a reminder of just how special our NHS is, but it was forgotten by the Chancellor. The NHS was missing from this Budget. It was a missed opportunity to rebuild our country into one that is not just wealthier, but healthier as we recover from this crisis.
If the last year has taught us anything, it is that levelling up our country cannot stop at Tory MPs in marginal seats pointing at a new train station platform or a motorway bypass. We need to wake up and realise that no country where life expectancy is eight years longer in parts of the Chancellor’s constituency than in parts of mine is one that is being levelled up.
The crisis has exposed yawning inequalities and the virus has exploited them, while 11 years of cuts to the NHS and the public sector have left us defending ourselves in a health war with shields made of bin bags. We all know that having a secure job makes someone less likely to get seriously ill, but while Luton has seen some of the highest job losses, we have thousands of businesses, self-employed people and entire industries, such as aviation and events, that have been completely forgotten by this Government.
Tory Chancellors tell us at every Budget, dewy-eyed, that these are tough and difficult decisions, but for over a decade their decisions have ended up costing our country so much more in the long run, not just financially but in terms of people’s health and wellbeing. These decisions have led to people in Luton enduring increased levels of in-work poverty and child poverty, to the extent that in this country one in five schools now needs its own food bank.
This Budget was missing so much, and it had all the depth of the Chancellor’s Instagram and all the sincerity of clapping nurses all the way to the food bank. This was the moment to finally invest in communities that had been forgotten—in our schools, in our NHS and in ending the inequalities that are holding our country back. It is time to prove that levelling up goes beyond posing in a high-vis jacket. After a year of sacrifice by people in Luton North, let us invest in areas based on need. Let us support businesses and high streets to recover. Let us bring more skilled jobs to Luton. Let us invest in making people healthier, and let us start by giving health and social care staff the pay they deserve.  Our healthcare heroes deserved better than this Budget. The people of Luton North deserved better than this Budget.

Jack Brereton: I want to focus on the importance of our delivering on the Prime Minister’s ambition to build back better. If levelling up relates to anywhere, it is Stoke-on-Trent. For decades we were ignored, but no longer. We now have a Government who, through this Budget, are focused on investing in areas that have seen little.
Whitehall is starting to wake up to the huge potential in places like Stoke-on-Trent, just waiting to be unleashed. With my Stoke-on-Trent colleagues and our fantastic council leader, Councillor Abi Brown, I was pleased to launch our “Powering Up Stoke-on-Trent” prospectus just over a week ago. It outlines our ambition for Stoke- on-Trent, an area that before covid had had been one of the fastest growing economically. As the 12th most deprived local authority area in the country, we must focus on addressing our challenges, but they will not hold us back. We are determined to overcome them for the benefit of everybody.
Our prospectus identifies four key high-growth sectors: digital, advanced manufacturing, especially in ceramics, green energy and creatives—decent jobs, proper skills and rewarding pay. Our prospectus outlines a range of projects we hope to deliver based around four priority areas: transport, economic development, education and skills, and health and productivity.
The Prime Minister and the Government are refocusing attention on areas like Stoke-on-Trent. Changes to the Treasury Green Book are especially welcome and will be vital to ensure a good slice of the levelling-up fund announced alongside the Budget. I am delighted that Stoke-on-Trent is identified as a top priority and will receive capacity funding.
In my constituency, the top priority must be securing additional investment for our main town of Longton. The town centre was struggling before covid, with double the national average of empty retail space, but the town still has huge potential. The focus for further investment should be supporting the conversion of empty space, improving public spaces, better stitching together the town and redeveloping key sites such as the former Tams works.
Clearly, levelling up is more than just one fund—it is for the entirety of Government—but the fund can stimulate wider change. With three wards in my constituency alone identified as left behind by the local trust and the all-party parliamentary group for left behind neighbourhoods, there is much to do to improve skills and opportunities. The kickstart scheme and the lifetime skills guarantee are vital parts of that, empowering people to access skilled and better-paid work.
We must also improve local public transport. In some wards in my constituency, more than 40% of households do not own a car, which severely limits life chances. I am delighted that my campaigns on transport are bearing fruit. We secured £36.4 million to improve local bus and rail through the transforming cities fund. Meir station is progressing well as part of the Government’s fantastic Restoring your Railway programme. Alongside my north Staffordshire colleagues, I was delighted to resubmit our bid last week for the reopening of the Stoke to Leek  line, including a station at Fenton Manor in my constituency. I thank the Chief Secretary for all the support he has been giving so far, and I hope he will back our exciting opportunities to power up Stoke-on-Trent.

Sam Tarry: We have many important sectors in our country that will hopefully be the engine of growth in the future, but which need support in the short and medium term—not least public transport. Sadly, there was very little in this Budget on transport. What we did see were mostly drastic cuts, with transport funding slashed from £13 billion to just £2.1 billion for the current financial year at a time when ridership levels are at record lows and operators are struggling to balance the books. Furthermore, funding for transport capital projects was cut from a meagre £600 million to zero, while intra-city funding has been delayed until at least 2022.
The lack of pandemic support has already had a profound impact on those who work in the transport sector, with over 1,000 jobs lost in both the bus and coach manufacturing industries—mostly, unfortunately, again in the north of England. And all this is at a time when the fuel duty freeze is costing the Government the best part of £1 billion, sending a clear message about where their priorities lie in terms of their decarbonisation agenda.
What hope is there for the ordinary worker who wants to return to work but is faced with a rise in rail fares and cuts to bus routes, which, in recent years, have seen 134 million miles lost? Where is the Government’s much heralded bus strategy, which was supposed to have been published last year? There was not a word of this in the Chancellor’s statement or, indeed, any update on the commitment to unveil 4,000 zero-emission buses, which can only lead us to conclude that their decarbonisation agenda has missed the bus. As the MP for Ilford South, I watch in dismay as the Government continue to level down London’s transport network rather than truly levelling up the midlands and the north.
The Budget was a pivotal moment for the climate emergency and jobs crisis, but next to nothing was announced for a new economic green recovery. There is no new investment for green recoveries in key industries, including automotive, aerospace and steel. Just £20 million was announced for floating offshore wind technology. Labour has called for a £30 billion green economic recovery, which would create 400,000 secure jobs in clean industries.
Earlier this week, the Chancellor boasted about kick-starting a green industrial revolution, but in reality the Government have slashed climate spending in this Budget, including a devastating £1.1 billion reduction in the green homes grant. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) pointed out, we are lagging far behind our European and global partners, with the US’s recent $1.7 trillion green plan over the next decade, while Germany and France have pledged a combined total of €70 billion over the next two years. Mass unemployment should not be inevitable in this pandemic, but the way that the Government are carrying on, it unfortunately could be.
At a time of acute and prolonged national crisis, there is an opportunity for the Budget to be more than one that drives a new political economy—one of investment  to create well-paid jobs, the renewal and expansion of infrastructure projects to fit out our country for the century ahead, and a world-leading acceleration of a green industrial revolution to lift our nation up through an active industrial strategy, not buzzwords, tax-evading freeports and pork barrel projects to shore up Tory ambitions.

Nicholas Fletcher: It is a pleasure to make my first contribution to a Budget debate. Almost a year ago today, I made my maiden speech just as the pandemic was beginning to grip the globe. The year that has followed has been tragic in every sense of the word, yet it could have been much worse. In July, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that unemployment would peak at 11.9%. That figure now stands at 6.5%, yet this is not a meaningless statistic. It has made a real difference. Close to 2 million jobs have been saved through the furlough scheme, business loans and the plethora of Government initiatives that I have been proud to support, but, as I have said repeatedly in this Chamber, we must now focus our energies on making sure that we have a sufficient economic recovery that ensures that people get back into work and start reaping the rewards provided by our dynamic economy.
Although it comes as no surprise that I was disappointed that Doncaster Sheffield airport was not awarded freeport status, this innovative policy will help to unlock the enterprising spirit of British businesses. I am pleased that a freeport will soon open in the Humber, benefiting the entire region and furthering this Government’s levelling-up agenda—an agenda that we should turn our attention to right now. The promise of levelling up is, after all, the reason why many in Don Valley voted for me and for Conservative party candidates across the north of England, yet to truly level up a region, business needs to thrive. The extension of the business rates holiday, the introduction of the restart grants and the continued reduction in VAT for the hospitality sector provide the foundation for economic recovery. Furthermore, the renewal of the airport and ground operations support scheme for a further six months will ensure that our regional airports, such as Doncaster Sheffield airport, can continue to facilitate economic growth in all four corners of the UK. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund and the super deductions for businesses will supercharge our recovery. For families, the freezing of fuel duty and the extension of the universal credit uplift will provide security for those who need it most. The Budget will make a long-lasting difference in the next couple of years.
For many people, politics can seem remote and irrelevant to their everyday lives, yet I know that people and businesses across Don Valley have been reassured and energised by the measures announced by the Chancellor last week. They know it will make a difference to their lives.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Having heard the Chancellor’s speech last week and having listened to the Prime Minister since the start of the pandemic, I can understand how some people in this country have been fooled into believing that the Government have their best interests at heart. Today I heard colleagues on the Government Benches acknowledge the need to address  the vast economic inequality in the UK—but that was caused by a decade of Conservative financial mismanagement, so I welcome their comments.
I am concerned that the rhetoric of levelling up is just that. We know that the devil is always in the detail. For all the fanfare around the Budget, the money pledged is a drop in the ocean next to the billions cut from local authorities and local services over the past decade. For all the talk of moving Government jobs out of London, 750 jobs on an economic campus do not make up for the loss of over 30,000 civil service jobs across the United Kingdom—civil servants with experience and institutional knowledge, leaving in droves as they are increasingly undervalued. How can we hope to fix regional inequality when the opaque, centralised approach employed by the Government to distribute those funds pits region against region? If levelling up means the Chancellor picking out his favourite blue pen and colouring in just Conservative-held areas, it smacks of the timocracy that has come to define this Government’s attitude. We are told that the Government are driven by a desire to level up, but their actions are led not by evidence, but by ideology.
We see that too with the freeports. English freeports are receiving £26 million each, whereas Wales has been offered only £8 million. That glaring disparity exposes the fact that levelling up is more of a slogan than a true ambition. On top of that, if Liverpool and Bristol become freeports, that will have a major impact on Holyhead and ports across south Wales. This myopic approach to spending, which seems to target positive headlines, not economic prosperity, puts jobs and industry at risk.
Will the Minister ensure that funding is distributed in a way that grows the economy, creating and preserving jobs throughout the United Kingdom, not just England, and ensure that freeports are not introduced at the expense of existing and successful places? It is a failing of this Tory Government not to understand and respect devolution. To move our countries forward, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor need to understand that and work collaboratively with our devolved Governments, not against them. We need the levelling up of the entire United Kingdom.
To conclude, will the Government rise above their petty, power-grab, bully-boy tactics and provide parity in their levelling-up agenda for the whole United Kingdom?

Conor McGinn: What a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi).
There is much to say about the Budget—unfortunately, very little of it good. It fails on every count to address the fundamental weaknesses and unfairness in our economy and offers no coherent plan to rebuild our country, invest in our communities and allow our citizens to prosper. That is felt acutely in my community by my friends, neighbours and constituents, who faced huge challenges before the pandemic. When I talk about health, educational, social and economic inequalities in St Helens North, I am not talking about a place on a map or about statistics; I am talking about our people and their lives. We know privilege grants to its inheritors  a head start—that has always been the way—but should it not be the job of Government to help the rest of us catch up? Why then does it feel as though communities such as mine are not only starting behind, but deliberately being hampered?
In the next two years, the Government are forcing cuts to our local health and social care services of more than £6 million and to our children and young people’s services of almost £8 million. This is happening in a borough where people die younger, leave school with fewer qualifications, are poorer and have worse health. That is not levelling up—it is doubling down. But we are used to it, and, despite it, the past year has shown again what a resilient, caring, innovative and determined community we are. We are ambitious too, for our families and our future.
Sometimes we are even optimistic. Our Labour-run council, under the leadership of David Baines, and alongside partners in business and in the community, has already started to deliver on ambitious plans to quite simply make St Helens borough the best place to live, work and visit in the north-west of England. We do not want the Government to do it for us; we know they cannot, but they can help us to do it for ourselves. We want to do it for ourselves, which is why we needed this Budget to give us a fighting chance to succeed and why it is so frustrating and disappointing that all it has done is give us an even harder race to run.

Julie Marson: I welcome this Budget, which is pragmatic and fair, and clearly responds to the extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in. But it is much, much more than just short-term crisis management. In its ambitions for growth, it is an extraordinary Budget. It is a Budget that says to the world that this Government mean business when it comes to business. It announces that this Government want the UK to lead the world in innovative, high-potential, high-growth sectors of the future. I have been advocating something similar to the new “future fund: breakthrough” scheme for some time. It is a smart policy that helps to root innovation companies to the UK by getting more money into the venture capital ecosystem at early stages. With better access to capital at an early stage we will encourage cutting-edge businesses to grow and eventually list here. I also commend Ron Kalifa and Lord Hill’s work in this space.
I also welcome the review of the charge cap announced by the Chancellor and look forward to seeing more ideas in the coming months from the Treasury, Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority’s industry working group. We have nearly £10 trillion-worth of assets under management in the UK, but only a tiny amount of that is ever directed at UK venture. Just 0.5% of UK defined-contribution pension investments were invested in unlisted equities in 2020. Too much capital is locked away in pension funds and hidden by a culture of avoiding any risk. In 2019, a mere 2% of the £48 billion raised by UK-based venture capital and private equity funds came from UK pension funds. I am delighted that this Government are beginning to grasp this nettle, and are prepared both to review the regulatory landscape and provide incentives.
Now is the time for a truly radical approach to this undertaking, and to lift the venture sector as an asset class, to be part of mainstream investing in its own right.  That will be transformational. Venture capital has the power to propel us into the green and technology-led future to which we aspire. It has the power to lift our economy up, pay our debt down and provide skills, wealth and opportunities to our people and communities. We need to unleash the power of venture capital. This Budget sets us on that path, and I look forward to supporting the Government and being a part of this exciting journey.

Beth Winter: The Chancellor has boasted that this Budget will create jobs, revive high streets, reinvigorate the economy and level up the regions and nations of the UK, but as the Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles, has said,
“this UK Government has an appalling record on providing Wales with even a fair share of UK spending, let alone the kind of funding needed to ‘level up’.”
Rhondda Cynon Taf, the local authority within which my constituency of Cynon Valley is located, has the third-highest covid death rate in the UK. Poverty and ever-widening inequality are the root cause of the high death toll, and they have been made worse by the past 11 years of Tory Government austerity.
I am angry that the levelling-up fund will be centrally managed. That goes against the express position of the Welsh Government and is contrary to previous announcements by the UK Government. It is not new money, it is not ring-fenced to Wales, and it represents a fraction of the funding that we need. It bypasses the democratically elected structures in Wales, which are best placed to understand the issues facing our country.
I am pleased that the furlough scheme has been extended, even though it was a last-minute announcement. The Prime Minister said last week that 3,400 people in my constituency are reliant on the scheme, but due to the Government’s short-sightedness, they are now facing a cliff edge in six months’ time.
I have just returned from a meeting with the aerospace industry in my constituency. Those jobs should be supported by the Government, but instead the industry is on the brink of collapse. Since the pandemic started, GE Aviation has cut almost 500 jobs, and there is fear for the future. As Ross Williams, a constituent of mine and a senior shop steward, states,
“if the sector isn’t protected and a sector specific deal provided the impact will be devastating. These are one of the last highly skilled and well paid jobs in the south Wales valleys. There’ll be nothing left for my son and future generations if these jobs go”.
The Chancellor’s decisions surrounding benefit payments are damaging all round. The much-needed uplift to universal credit will only be a temporary measure. For thousands of my constituents, that uplift is the difference between feeding their families and going hungry. One of my constituents, Emma, told me:
“I didn’t ever expect to get sick but you know, I have. And I’m suffering. I’m living on the breadline, and my mental health is suffering. I feel like I’m being punished.”
If the Chancellor understood the hardship that so many endure, he would have made the uplift permanent and extended it to those on legacy benefits. How does he see my constituents managing in six months’ time when furlough ends and he proposes to end the £20 uplift to  universal credit? How will that help to create demand in the economies of Mountain Ash or Aberdare in my constituency?
It does not have to be this way. We are the fifth richest nation in the world. There is a different way: introduce a wealth tax and a windfall tax, adopt a jobs guarantee scheme, properly invest in a green industrial revolution, increase statutory sick pay in line with the living wage and introduce a universal basic income. The new normal must incorporate a tax system that ensures that the wealthy pay their fair share and a welfare system that ensures that no one is left behind, but to level up in communities such as mine, Westminster must respect the democratic structures in Wales and ensure we get our fair share of funding. Diolch yn fawr.

Angela Richardson: I welcome this pragmatic Budget, which recognises that flexibility, not ideology, is what is needed in responding to a global pandemic. It addresses the current needs that we have as a country by extending the furlough scheme to September and giving further grants to the self-employed, bringing an additional 600,000 taxpayers into one of the most generous schemes in the world. The measures not just in this Budget but over the past year are rightly lauded. They ensure that businesses can bring back as many employees as possible, and provide security for millions.
Guildford, Cranleigh and our villages are home to wonderful high streets. We are proud of them, and they draw visitors from near and far. I know that local businesses will join me in welcoming the restart grants package of £5 billion, which equates to up to £6,000 or £18,000, depending on when the business reopens. That measure, along with continuing the business rates holiday and extending the cut in VAT so that it remains at 5% for a further six months, is a genuine springboard.
It has been fantastic to see new businesses open in Guildford and Cranleigh, and existing businesses take up locations with a larger square footage, over the past year. That fantastic sign of confidence can be attributed to the Government’s commitment to business.
I want to take this opportunity to recognise the value of our local arts and culture to the economy in Guildford, which is often underestimated. The University of Surrey, in conjunction with the Yvonne Arnaud theatre and the Watts gallery in my constituency, and The Lightbox gallery and museum in nearby Woking, conducted a study last year on the economic and social impacts of the arts. It found that for every £10 spent at a venue, there was an additional spend of up to £13.28, the majority of which stays in the local economy. Over the course of a normal year, the Yvonne Arnaud theatre is calculated to bring an additional £1.5 million into the area simply with theatre attendances. Some 70% of visitors to the area would not have come had the venues been located elsewhere. It therefore strikes me as incredibly short-sighted of Guildford Borough Council to propose cutting funding to the Yvonne Arnaud, and, thankfully, sensible of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the culture recovery fund by an additional £300 million, recognising not only the fiscal value of these institutions, but their value to the social fabric of our communities.
There is a clear plan of investment by this Government in business, high streets and our communities, supporting jobs and providing training and apprenticeships to help enable those who have sadly lost their jobs to get back into work. I will be voting for this Budget tonight.

Tan Dhesi: It is now one year since the first tragic deaths in the UK from covid-19 were reported, and the true scale of this crisis became clear. Thousands have lost their lives to this terrible virus, and, sadly, we now have the worst death toll in Europe. Our economy has been convulsed by a collapse in GDP, a spike in unemployment, and a crisis for businesses, especially in arts, aviation and hospitality, which have been made worse by Government inaction and blunders and billions being wasted on Tory crony covid contracts.
Shamefully, we are now facing the worst economic crisis of any major economy. Therefore we might have hoped for a bold Budget that recognised the scale of the challenge, equipping our economy for the future, but all the Chancellor has shown is that he is completely out of touch with what this country needs. What did this Budget promise? The centrepiece for long-term investment is a national infrastructure bank. It is almost 10 years since David Cameron launched the green investment bank, with all the same promises and rhetoric, and it is four years since the Conservatives privatised it. What we need is an investment bank capitalised at £20 billion over five years at least, with regional investment banks in every region to invest in green businesses throughout our country. We need an institutional champion for green businesses and jobs. Instead, we got a get-rich-quick scheme for investors. This Budget could have provided the platform for a green recovery, just as Slough is attempting to do in Berkshire.
We could have had a major national rail electrification programme to help decarbonise our transport, but, no. I welcome the £20 million for floating offshore wind technology, but that is paltry compared with the scale of the challenge. In reality, we need a £30 billion green economic recovery package to create 400,000 green secure jobs. That is how we would get a proper investment-led recovery to help us meet our carbon targets and help tackle the climate crisis.
This could have been a Budget for the next generation, creating jobs and housing, investing in education and safeguarding the climate for younger people, but they have all been overlooked yet again. A Budget is a statement of values and priorities, and the Chancellor’s priorities are transparent: no extra funding to fix fire-hazard cladding, but a tax break for second home owners; a mere 1% rise for the NHS workers who have given their all for us during the past year; no mention at all of the Government’s trade deal with the EU and the 4% reduction in GDP over 15 years caused by the thin, terrible, burned oven-ready Brexit deal. This is a Budget that stores up trouble for places such as Slough and hits the poorest hardest.

Ben Spencer: I welcome this Budget, as it will protect the jobs and livelihoods of the people living in Runnymede and  Weybridge, but it does so much more. In particular, I want to talk today about some of the core provisions that will benefit my constituents over the short, medium and long term. This is a Budget that meets our short-term and emergency needs while we still face the pandemic and restrictions remain in place, providing vital support for businesses and families to enable them to weather the covid storm.
Over the course of the past year, I have had many discussions with residents and I know what a lifeline the self-employment income support scheme and furlough have been, along with direct business support. My local businesses often tell me that they need certainty, and this Budget, and the extension of provisions alongside the road map for the lifting of restrictions, will give them the certainty they need to plan for the months ahead.
For the medium term, I welcome the support for investment and innovation, the incredible super deduction, Help to Grow and further support for enterprise management incentives. Those will all help companies in my constituency, particularly the many small and medium-sized enterprises that, I am sure all Members will agree, set up in Runnymede and Weybridge because of the excellent logistics benefits it offers. Those businesses are champing at the bit to get moving as restrictions lift and to grow and flourish, providing jobs and investment locally.
Finally, but most importantly, this is a Budget that tackles the long-term challenges we face. First, on sustainability and climate change, I particularly want to draw attention to energy innovation and support for the UK biomass feedstocks programme. That will be essential for the development of domestic biofuel supplies to support the sustainability of our aviation sector and jet zero, benefiting my constituents by securing the future of the aviation sector and those employed in it and reducing aircraft pollution and the harms that it causes.
Secondly, on national finances, we are in a hugely challenging economic situation as a result of the pandemic. While it is right to spend now, invest in infrastructure and projects that will drive growth and tackle the perennial regional inequalities that have plagued our country, we need to tackle the deficit. The tax policies set out in the Budget begin to address that without undermining the plan for economic growth. The Budget protects jobs and livelihoods now and lays the foundation for both the economic recovery ahead and a return to strong public finances. It is not us here who will be paying off our debt but our children, and we owe it to them to balance the books today, so that they inherit a flourishing economy unburdened by the debts of their parents.

Mike Hill: When it comes to the Government’s levelling-up agenda, this Budget leaves a great deal to be desired. I welcome the move to send Treasury North to the Tees Valley and the exploration of Teesside and locations in my constituency for the siting of a freeport, but I believe the Government could offer more for our communities.
While the exploration of potential new large-scale infrastructure projects is very welcome, there is already one large employer in my constituency in the form of Hartlepool nuclear power station, which is integral to our nation’s energy supply and needs guarantees about  its future. The Budget was the perfect opportunity to cement the future of nuclear energy in Hartlepool, which contributes to the Government’s green energy commitments and our zero carbon future. The omission of the nuclear sector from the Budget is deeply concerning to the workers in that power station, as the clock ticks down to the decommissioning of the site without a renewal firmly on the table. Sites such as Hartlepool already have the infrastructure, the professional and skilled workforce and the desire to keep those generators spinning. We just need the Treasury to show that it is willing to support us, and I hope the Minister will respond to that. The Government must be serious about the future of the sector, as thousands of jobs nationwide and our national energy security depend on it.
On the same note, towns such as Hartlepool do not feel they got the recognition they deserve from this Budget. After a decade of cuts to funding for some of the poorest and smallest local authorities, including Hartlepool, we need funding available to kickstart our local economies and get money back into the community, where it can stimulate local business and revitalise our communities. As the towns fund makes its way to mostly Conservative seats, my constituents are right to wonder in whose interests this Budget is being made.
The Government will be aware that nothing comes from nothing, and after a decade of cuts and the biggest peacetime crisis in our history, they will also be aware that we cannot expect to bounce back without sufficient support. This Budget certainly has potential benefits to Hartlepool—no doubt—but until the gaps in the safety net are closed, our public services are properly funded and existing key industries such as Liberty Steel are supported with the means to survive long term, our recovery and the Government’s flagship levelling-up agenda will only ever fall short of what we need in a community that needs it more than most.

Kieran Mullan: Over the past 12 months, this country has faced its biggest challenge for a generation. Our constituents, our economy and our health service have all been tested. We have been asked to make enormous sacrifices of all different kinds: friends and family cut off from each other; some people not seeing loved ones at the end of their lives; hard-grown businesses ground to a halt; and young people missing out on their education at a key time in their lives and their growth. We have all, as taxpayers, paid an enormous financial price, and this comes on the back of a decade of everybody making sacrifices to help get the deficit under control. We can all be very glad that we achieved that, as it allowed us to spend quickly and to spend big at this crucial time.
We are now faced again with a difficult journey to get our economy back on track. I want to talk about three of the Government’s approaches that are vital, not just for driving our recovery now, but for ensuring that we continue to be a country that gives its citizens opportunities: first, the lifetime skills guarantee; secondly, the commitment to apprenticeships; and thirdly, the targeted approach to corporation tax and incentives for capital investment.
We know that there are employers out there who are growing their workforces and expanding their operations. We also know that, for years now, hundreds of thousands of jobs have gone unfilled. Whenever a skilled job goes unfilled or whenever an employer needs to look abroad  to fill it, that is a missed opportunity for one of our constituents—an opportunity to get a better paid job, to earn enough to support their own families and to get on the housing ladder.
During National Apprenticeship Week, I had the opportunity to talk to apprentices working at Bentley and at Alstom in Crewe. Those young people were incredibly ambitious and determined, and were very clear about the course they wanted to chart in their lives. They knew that their future was going to be more secure in skilled work, using their hands and minds to apply themselves.
What we are doing with apprenticeships can be built on with the lifetime skills guarantee. Now more than ever, our workforce need to be able to gain new skills and be flexible. The challenge is not just about whether a course is available and free; it is about changing how we think and feel about our careers throughout our adult lives. Too many people will feel that they have failed or done something wrong if they need to change skills and careers. We have to change that mindset. I encourage the Government to ensure that we shout loudly about the lifetime skills offer, and keep shouting about it until everybody has heard the message loud and clear.
Our approach to tax will encourage businesses to keep creating jobs for our constituents to take up. Recovery is not going to be pain-free. I am a member of the Conservative party because we know that the Government cannot wipe out the pain and difficulty with a click of our fingers, or fix it all on the back of wealthy people. We are starting to get to grips with what this recovery needs to look like. I welcome the Government’s aims and ambitions as laid out in this Budget, and will be supporting it this evening.

Kerry McCarthy: The shadow Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), spoke earlier about the post-war years, Ernie Bevin and the need to build back better, then and now. In Bristol—where Bevin started work on the docks at the age of 11 and fought for workers’ rights as a trade unionist, before becoming one of the giants of the post-war Labour Government—we are hugely disappointed at the lack of any funding in the Budget for our biggest project, Temple quarter. The regeneration of the area around Brunel’s historic Temple Meads station would mean 22,000 new jobs, 10,000 new homes and an economic boost of £1.6 billion per annum for the city. That is exactly the sort of “shovel-ready” project that the Government were asking for. We have to ask why places such as Bristol are being overlooked for levelling-up funds in favour of far more affluent areas.
The Chancellor’s offer to extend support to the 600,000 newly self-employed is welcome, but that still leaves more than 2 million freelancers and limited company directors excluded—and that is a conscious decision by the Chancellor. People on legacy benefits are being treated as second-class citizens, and the freezing of income tax bands will hit those on modest incomes the hardest. Events supply chain companies in my constituency are desperate for targeted support. When I raised this issue recently with the Prime Minister, he assured me that we would be hearing more on this from the Chancellor in the Budget; we listened, but we heard very little.
We also heard nothing new on support for our failing social care system and nothing on child poverty. What was meant to be a 2.1% pay rise for nurses has been whittled down to 1%—a real-terms pay cut—in the interests of austerity; and we know how well austerity worked last time.
Finally, we were promised a green Budget, yet we got nothing of the sort. We needed to see measures that would kick-start a transformative green recovery, but what we got was a pitiful lack of ambition from the Chancellor. Although I welcome the £4.1 million allocated to reducing car usage in the west of England, this kind of piecemeal funding is no substitute for a national strategy for decarbonising transport and encouraging take-up of active travel. Ahead of hosting COP26, we should be leading the way on tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, yet the Chancellor is more concerned with boosting his own leadership prospects and “brand Rishi” than with showing the international leadership that we need from our senior politicians on this issue.
The UK is being eclipsed in green recovery spending at an international level. For instance, France and Germany have both delivered substantial green spending packages to decarbonise their economies. Labour has already set out its plan for a £30 billion green stimulus to support 400,000 new green jobs. I urge the Chancellor to read those plans, which might just help him to think bigger when it comes to protecting our planet.

Suzanne Webb: Covid-19 has had a catastrophic impact on our economy, but I truly believe that, despite that, it will provide the architecture for change and fertile ground for innovation. We have already seen the homeworking revolution, the pace of digitalisation ramping up, the incredible speed of vaccination—from creation to roll-out—and the seeds of transformation in our NHS, with new ways of working and the largest diagnostic network in British history. While we have had big collapses in sectors such as retail and hospitality, we have evolution and growth in others, including construction and social care. This is the fastest changing jobs market for a generation.
To ensure that this pandemic does not define a generation, we should look forward and look for new economic opportunities with confidence and optimism. This Budget helps us do just that. It sends a strong message of recovery, unveiling major tax incentives for businesses to invest. This is the Budget with the biggest business tax cut in modern British history, with the introduction of a super reduction in tax bills, which is particularly welcome in the manufacturing heartlands of the urban west midlands. This is a Budget that is investing in public and private projects to finance the green industrial revolution. I also loudly applaud the eight freeports, which will encourage free trade and bring investment to all regions of the country through lower taxes and cheaper customs.
We should not treat this Budget in isolation from other important investments. The Government had the foresight to invest in innovation, with the £800 million investment in the advanced research and innovation agency. The agency will be tasked with empowering some of the world’s most exceptional scientists and  researchers to turn incredible ideas into new technologies, discoveries, products and services, and it is welcome to put its roots in my constituency. I also welcome the £500 million being pumped into the electric car revolution, which will benefit the west midlands enormously.
This Budget is the largest economic peacetime support package on record, and it fits with my agenda of jobs and investment in my constituency. As a result of the Government’s interventions, unemployment is now estimated to peak at far lower levels than previously expected. This Budget is providing a lifeline for my businesses in Stourbridge.
I welcome this Budget, which stands by the workers and businesses in my constituency and which stands by to protect people’s livelihoods. It is a Budget that encourages investment and innovation and that recognises the need for transformation. We have seen human tragedy in 2020. We must not let that be the prelude to an economic tragedy. This is a bold Budget, providing the architecture for a better future—a Budget that is taking unprecedented action to drive our economic recovery.

Claire Hanna: The Budget represents interim measures, which may be understandable, given the economic climate, but it also represents missed opportunities, which are much less excusable—missed opportunities to have a genuine and meaningful green recovery, to invest in a resilient health service and the NHS workforce, or to support those who have lost jobs and income over the last year. It appears that the Government have not learned much from the last decade. Rather than injecting stimulus through people to tackle inequality, such as through a meaningful living wage or investing in child care, infrastructure or skills, they are choosing to leave it to the market to encourage growth and recovery.
Not only have businesses been dealing with pandemic, but many are seeking to survive and recover from the shock of Brexit, on which the Chancellor was suspiciously quiet. Northern Ireland finds itself in a unique position due to the Northern Ireland protocol, because we have access to both the UK and EU markets. This is not the best of both worlds—that was the EU or, at a push, the backstop. That is because both worlds—the EU and the UK—have been diminished by Brexit. Northern Ireland and its people opposed Brexit, but it has been imposed on us, so responsible political parties such as the Social Democratic and Labour party are working to make the best of the hand we have been dealt. I wish that those Northern Ireland MPs who campaigned relentlessly for Brexit would find it in themselves to be constructive now.
Making lemonade with the lemons we have been handed requires the Government to work with Northern Ireland Executive partners to develop an investment plan for Northern Ireland, based on promoting the business advantages of investing at this crossroads, including big opportunities in agrifoods, advanced manufacturing and green and low-carbon technology. There is now a chance for Northern Ireland to have its first ever unique selling point and to move towards climate-friendly production and a gear change in our historically poor productivity.
Overall, despite the Government’s chat on green recovery, this Budget does not do much to convince us of genuine ambition in this regard. The SDLP has spoken in the   past 12 months about the opportunity for a generational rethink and a turning point, including on the climate. The year that we have had to reflect on what is really important in life, work and society has been a perfect opportunity to transition from obsessing exclusively about economic growth to a Budget that mainstreams the enhancement of the health and wellbeing of individuals, communities and the environment.
There has been insufficient focus on the environment and on those who are already living economically precarious and marginal lives. Yes, the Chancellor was dragged kicking and screaming to extend furlough and universal credit, but the poorest households will still see their income drop by 7% while unemployment benefits are at their lowest real level since the early 1990s. This is not levelling up; rather, it favours those who have been able to build up savings. This Budget does not allow the whole of society to recover. Finally, the lack of ambition and investment for the NHS workforce is bitterly disappointing, given what they have just gone through on our behalf, and the U-turn away from the derisory 1% pay increase needs to come fast.

Peter Aldous: From a Waveney and East Anglian perspective, the two main features of the Budget were the towns fund deal announcement for Lowestoft and the successful freeport bid for Felixstowe and Harwich. These two announcements are welcome and can play a key role in the covid recovery. Locally, the cornerstone of the Waveney recovery will be the £220 million public investment in the centre of Lowestoft in the next five years—not just for the towns fund deal but for the Gull Wing bridge and the Lowestoft flood defence scheme. We must ensure that these projects are built on time and on budget and that they act as catalysts for private sector investment and provide local people with the opportunity to work on them.
East Anglia has enormous potential to play a lead role in the emerging green economy. We can be a global leader and exemplar, and we must ensure that local people benefit from this. There are great opportunities in a wide variety of sectors: low carbon energy production, including offshore wind, nuclear and hydrogen; the storage of carbon in the gas fields of the southern North sea; sustainable, responsible custodianship of our marine and fishing resources, building on the work of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which has been in Lowestoft for over a century; low-carbon shipping and maritime activities, not just in Felixstowe and Harwich but in Ipswich, Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn; and, finally, the emergence of net zero agriculture.
The policy framework that will enable us to make the most of these opportunities is emerging. The announcements in the Budget follow on from the publication in December of the energy White Paper and last month of the further education White Paper. Moving forward, we now need to put into practice the proposals in the further education White Paper so as to provide young and local people with the skills and expertise to take advantage of these exciting opportunities. We must move away from the low-wage economy that has been prevalent in East Anglia for too long.
The North sea transition deal that will be published in the next few weeks must properly recognise the full potential in the southern North sea. A lot of work is  required, as well as investment, to rebuild a sustainable fishing industry on the East Anglian coast. The fishing aspect of the free trade agreement with the EU is not helpful and has set us back a few years, but with the right investment and responsible management, progress can be made. Finally, the arrangements and support provided for the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone should be reviewed and properly aligned with these emerging and exciting opportunities.

Margaret Greenwood: The Chancellor’s Budget was a disappointment, because it failed to grasp the enormity of the challenges facing our country: the challenges of poverty, inequality, low pay and unemployment; the erosion of our vital public services over the past 11 years; and the urgency of addressing the climate crisis. It also failed to take the opportunity to reward the public sector workers who have kept the country going throughout the pandemic. Instead, the Chancellor has shamefully decided to cut the pay of NHS staff and other public sector workers when he should be giving them a pay rise.
There were already 14 million people living in poverty in the UK before the pandemic and over 4 million of them were children. Despite all the evidence of the extreme hardship of those on low pay and those out of work, last week the Chancellor merely deferred his £20 a week cut to universal credit for another six months. We on these Benches have been calling on the Government to extend statutory sick pay to all workers and to increase it; instead, the Chancellor is cutting statutory sick pay in real terms, despite the fact that it was already at one of the lowest levels in Europe. He waited too long to extend furlough, causing uncertainty for businesses and workers, and newly announced support for the self-employed has been described by ExcludedUK as “too little too late” for the 3 million workers so far excluded from financial help during the pandemic.
There has been a large increase in the numbers of people who are unemployed during the pandemic, and young people have been particularly badly hit, with youth unemployment increasing by 13%. The Government response has been inadequate. Last July the Chancellor announced his kickstart scheme to get young people into work, saying that it was aimed at preventing an entire generation from being “left behind”, yet only about 4,000 young people have started new jobs through it.
The Chancellor has also failed to show ambition to tackle the climate emergency. Labour has repeatedly called for a £30 billion green economic recovery to secure 400,000 secure jobs in clean industries, but the Chancellor has failed to deliver. He announced just £20 million for floating offshore wind and has actually cut the green homes grant by more than £1 billion. The new national infrastructure bank offers a fraction of the funding recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission.
To conclude, the Government should cancel their plans to cut the pay of public sector workers and cancel once and for all the cut to UC; reinvest in our public services, which have been damaged by years of austerity; and heed Labour’s call for a £30 billion green economic recovery to create 400,000 secure jobs in clean industries to tackle the climate emergency.

Ben Everitt: Who would want to be the Chancellor putting forward a Budget during a global pandemic? But this is where we are and this is what has to be done.
This Budget walks a tightrope: it stimulates businesses; it provides certainty to markets and investors; it provides the foundations for rebooting our economy while supporting people, jobs, livelihoods and businesses as we look to climb down the mountain of covid; and it puts in place the opportunity to build back better. It is the Budget where we levelled with the people, but we level up next. This will turbocharge our levelling up.
The first job, however, is to get through the pandemic. A total of £407 billion has been put aside in support for this year and next; that is equivalent to 19% of GDP. Furlough has been extended again through until September, and it is to be hoped that that is it and that is all we need to save those jobs—11.2 million jobs secured. A further two self-employment grants have been brought in, bringing total support of £33 billion, and there are 100% business rate holidays in retail, hospitality and leisure, worth £10 billion. This is a Budget that looks after jobs, but that also looks to the future.
I am particularly pleased with the £22.7 million of investment in Milton Keynes through the towns fund. That will kickstart the development of a new tech campus at Milton Keynes College. It is a vote of confidence by this Government in the ambition and the skills of the next generation of pioneers who will take the ideas born in Milton Keynes and make them global.
Councillors in Milton Keynes have put forward a global MK idea, and I am right behind that; global MK should be at the heart of global Britain with all these trade deals we are doing around the world. MK is home to Bletchley—the codebreakers—and is home to robots that deliver our groceries, and high-tech businesses with data and space technology. We can be the centre of the recovery, and the inward investment we will get as a result of measures taken in this Budget will turbocharge that.
Only the United States ranks higher than the UK for foreign direct investment. The UK is open for business and this Budget will make sure that we are the most competitive, nimble and attractive destination for business in the world. This is a Budget that works for Britain and for Milton Keynes.

Alan Brown: The idea that the Tories can level up broken Britain just defies logic. They have been the party of government for two thirds of the past century, they have been in power since 2010, and it was them who brought in austerity aligned with tax cuts for the richest. The PPE contracts awarded to friends and cronies say it all: the Tories create inequality.
The Tories’ concept of levelling up is that Westminster knows best, as demonstrated by the UK shared prosperity fund, which bypasses Scottish devolution. We know that the stronger towns fund was manipulated for political gain, so why will this agenda be any different? Even the handling of the furlough scheme and support measures showed the opposite of levelling up, with the refusal to listen to the devolved Administrations and regional  Mayors about the need to extend the furlough and business support schemes; they were roundly ignored until London had covid spikes again. The Budget measures demonstrate the Tories’ view of levelling up too— £1.6 billion allocated for maintaining the stamp duty freeze, and the introduction of a mortgage guarantee scheme to the value of £600,000. That shows they are out of touch with reality.
When we have 3,000 people per year dying from fuel poverty, levelling up should involve cutting VAT on energy- efficiency measures and direct Government investment in them. As we transition to net zero, we must not create further fuel poverty. The contracts for difference process has been successful in bringing down the cost of renewables, but the overall project costs go on our electricity bills. It is unsustainable for the costs of decarbonising our heating systems to go directly on to energy bills. When will the Government address that?
The 10-point plan itself is useless without policies to back it up. For example, a target of 600,000 heat pump installations per year is useless without a credible, funded programme. That needs to go hand in hand with energy installation measures, starting with off-grid homes—a proper levelling-up opportunity that has been missed.
We need a pricing mechanism to be put in place to allow pumped-storage hydro in Scotland, in order to progress in rural areas that need economic stimulus. We must move quickly on carbon capture and storage schemes or we can forget the 2025 target. We need real investment in marine and tidal, reform of the CfD process to create further green jobs and a hydrogen strategy that matches the lead of the Scottish Government—and we really need to repurpose investment from the nuclear folly.
I welcome the Government’s plans to raise corporation tax, but they show that we have been fed lies that previous cuts in corporation tax increased revenue. About £50 billion has been lost in recent years that the Government could now be using for reinvestment. We needed additional investment, but worse, the Scottish Government’s capital budget was cut. That shows more than ever that Scotland needs the full powers of independence to implement its own green recovery and level up.

Christian Wakeford: This year’s Budget is like no other, not only coming at the height of a global economic crash brought on by covid but setting the terms of our recovery as we embark on the road map to freedom. This is all made possible by the amazing vaccine roll-out programme, which so far has delivered over 22 million vaccines across the UK.
The Budget delivered many of the changes that I have been lobbying for on behalf of the residents of Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich. The cancellation of the planned increases in both alcohol and fuel duty means that an average driver in Bury will save £1,600 against Labour’s fuel duty escalator. For the brewing and distilling sectors, the freeze on alcohol duty is also very welcome news, as it is for those who, like me, are looking forward to visiting pubs such as the Sparking Clog when they reopen shortly.
For homebuyers in Bury, there was the heartening announcement that the stamp duty holiday will be extended by a further three months to ensure that those  who are in the process of buying will get the benefit of the reduction. Young people trying to get on the property ladder will be freed from Generation Rent, with Government- backed 95% mortgages to ensure that everyone can have the security of owning their own home.
For businesses in Whitefield, Prestwich and Radcliffe, help continues; the business rates holiday has been extended to the end of June, with a reduced payment for the remainder of the financial year, while the VAT reduction holiday for hospitality and tourism businesses has also been extended, until October. We are helping businesses build back as they reopen following lockdown by offering business restart grants to allow them to hit the ground running.
It would be remiss of me to talk about investing in businesses without talking about the super deduction. For many people, super deduction sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, but it is really not just a huge tax cut, but a tax stimulus to invest in our own economy, our own research and development, our own learning and our own people. It is truly to be recommended.
The Chancellor announced that the levelling up fund is now open for applications for all areas of the UK. Over the next few weeks and months that will be my focus, working with Bury Council to put in the best bid possible to regenerate our town centres and high streets, such as Radcliffe and Prestwich. Securing that funding will be central to my ambition to improve our towns, so that we can have an even better place to live, work and go to school, even more so on the back of delivering the new high school for Radcliffe, which we secured just a few weeks’ ago.
I conclude by saying that this Budget will ensure that we can recover from coronavirus by delivering for jobs, apprentices, business and homebuyers, and will help boost world-leading investment programmes. In driving forward these spending plans, we can really build back better for a stronger Bury.

Lyn Brown: I have only got three minutes, so I have ditched most of my speech. I am going to talk about how this Budget frankly ain’t going to work for the children or people of West Ham.
Newham Council surveyed schools a month ago and found that 5,000 Newham children still do not have a laptop and around 2,000 are still without broadband. The Government have got through a whole year without delivering the basic resources needed by the children in Newham in this pandemic. Lack of access is a consequence of poverty and inequality, and it has increased terribly over the past 10 years. In Newham, more than half our children are living in poverty.
Most children lost 5% of their normal lifetime in school during the pandemic and they could not learn properly without digital resources. We need to recognise that inequality is not going away simply because schools have reopened. These children still need IT and access to broadband just to ensure a more level playing field for the rest of their education. In Newham, our schools do an amazing job seeking to ensure that all our children achieve their potential, but these children and teachers must have the resources they need to repair the damage of inequality and this pandemic. There must surely be a true guarantee, finally, that every young person who needs digital access to their education will actually get it.
Let me quickly talk about the damage that is being done to families. Unemployment in Newham has increased 240% since the start of the pandemic. There are an estimated 19,500 people furloughed in West Ham alone. I am afraid that huge numbers of those excluded from support over the past year are still going to be left without the income they deserve. The Government seem determined to cut vital social security support in October in one of the most expensive cities in the world just when many more constituents may be forced into unemployment and as furlough and other support schemes end. It is unreasonable, it is unfair.
This pandemic has not gone away, yet the Budget has not fixed statutory sick pay. We cannot ensure that no one will lose out from doing the right thing and self-isolating when sick. Instead of fixing it, sick pay is going to be cut in real terms from next month. We need to ensure our economic recovery can take place as safely, as fairly and as quickly as possible, but I just do not think this Budget is going to do that for the people Newham—and I don’t think it was intended to.

Nickie Aiken: There is so much to welcome in this Budget that will benefit the businesses and individuals across the Cities of London and Westminster: the extension of the furlough until the end of September; a host of restart grants worth an extra £5 billion and the new recovery loans to replace our existing loan scheme; £700 million for arts, culture and sports to reopen safely; a further 600,000 self-employed people eligible for covid-related financial support; the extension of the 5% VAT cut for the hospitality industry for a further six months; and the extension of the 100% business rates holiday for a further three months until June. I would like to take this opportunity also to congratulate the Corporation of London on announcing its own £50 million covid business recovery fund, which will be made available to City-based small and independent businesses in certain sectors to support a return to work.
Central London is likely to see a very slow recovery that takes several years to reach pre-pandemic levels. Its economy depends on workers and international visitors, both of whom will be slow to be return to the capital. I hope the Government will consider launching a marketing campaign to encourage workers to return to their offices in the spring. From the conversations I have had with local employers, it seems that most do not expect to see their staff back until the autumn. This could be difficult for the hospitality and retail sectors as they begin to pay rates and rent from July. We also need a robust transport system that commuters are confident to use again, and I hope the Mayor of London will work constructively with the Government to ensure that this is the case.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement to amend UK listing rules, making the UK a more attractive location for initial public offerings and introducing improvements to tech visas to attract global talent and boost the fintech workforce. Both of those were recommendations from the Kalifa review on the FinTech sector, which is worth £110 billion to the UK economy and is set to grow to £380 billion by 2030. We currently have 10% global market share, and with Government support we can build our technology talent. Covid has been a game changer for FinTech. Six million people— 10% of the population—downloaded a banking app for  the first time last April, the first month of lockdown. We have seen digital transactions and interactions for both business and individuals grow hugely. I hope we will see more of Kalifa’s recommendations introduced, including a centre for finance, innovation and technology to strengthen our national FinTech co-ordination.
I thank the Chancellor for a long list of progressive and sensible policies announced in this investment recovery Budget, making the UK the best place in the world for high-growth, innovative companies bringing strong job growth across the country.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to be called in this debate.
I fear that the investment-led recovery and the levelling-up agenda referred to by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) is set to fall at the first hurdle. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the plans by the notorious venture capitalists Melrose Industries to close the GKN Automotive factory in Birmingham. Indeed, hon. Members may remember the controversy that surrounded the hostile takeover of GKN by Melrose in 2018. Serious concerns were raised at the time by Unite the union and hon. and right hon. Members in this House about the implications of that takeover for national security and for the future of the GKN brand. In an attempt to allay these fears, Melrose promised to rebuild GKN into a British manufacturing powerhouse. It was a horrible promise. Five hundred highly skilled workers at the Chester Road site are now facing the sack.
The news of the planned closure has come as a shock to the workforce and to their union, which until recently had been in discussions with management about boosting investment into the site. Melrose maintains that the plant is unviable owing to the transition to vehicle electrification. Unite the union disputes this and is developing a rescue plan that will secure a bright future for the site. I want to place on record my concern that Melrose’s chief executive officer, Simon Peckham, misled MPs on the BEIS Committee last month about the kind of work that takes place on-site. With the Government bringing forward their ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2040 to 2030, the shift to battery electric vehicle production is more urgent than ever, but it is vital that that transition to electric vehicles is investment-led and sustainable.
GKN can trace its origins back to the birth of the industrial revolution. It has more than 250 years of history. The Government owe it to British manufacturing and to this prestigious company, one of the largest UK industrial companies, to defend its future as we make a shift from the internal combustion engine to electric vehicles. I urge the Government to join Unite the union in urging Melrose to examine alternatives to the closure of the GKN automotive plant, and to prevent Melrose from asset-stripping and then disposing of this important British company.

Clive Betts: There are a lot of things missing from this Budget that I could comment on, but I will try to highlight some of the really important ones.
First, local government went into the covid crisis having had the biggest cuts of any part of the public sector since 2010. Some of the costs of covid and some of the loss of income have been covered by the Government, but local government went in with a £5 billion shortfall, and £2.6 billion of those extra costs and lost income have not been covered, so the crisis in funding for local government is all the greater. Croydon has put in a section 114 notice post covid, four other councils have had to have capitalisation plans accepted and we know that many others are on a financial lifeline. In the Budget, there was no mention of extra funding for local government, no mention of financial reform and no mention of reform to the business rates system, which has been promised over and over again.
The Chancellor could not even get the words “social care” out of his mouth when he spoke to the House about the Budget. There was no mention of social care at all, but we know that reform to social care funding is key to the whole reform of local authority funding. Indeed, two Select Committees—the Health and Social Care Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—did a joint report three years ago and gave the Chancellor an oven-ready scheme, to coin a phrase, which would have reformed social care funding with a social care premium. We are still waiting for a response to that report three years later.
There was no mention of the public health grant, despite the incredible work that public health inspectors and directors have done during the covid crisis. If only they had had a fraction of the money that has gone to the private contractors doing track and trace, I think we would all be in a much better position today. And, of course, what is the reward for all those people who have worked so hard in local government services—the social care workers, the public health workers, the environmental health workers and people like the refuse collectors who have kept our important regular services going during this crisis? What is their reward? A pay freeze. That is what their reward is. It is completely unacceptable that these hard-working people should be asked to bear a disproportionate share of trying to get the budget deficit back under control.
If we are going to build back better, then of course we need more social housing. The Select Committee did a report saying that to get to 300,000 homes in this country, 90,000 need to be in the social housing sector, built by councils and housing associations. There was not a penny in the Budget to enable that programme to be got under way, and we estimated that it would cost about £10 billion a year.
What we are seeing, unfortunately, is that for all these important public services and important public servants, the pre-covid austerity has now been translated into—guess what?—post-covid austerity, which is something we should all oppose.

Charlotte Nichols: The past decade has seen successive Conservative Governments fail every economic task they have set themselves. The Cameron Government came in, in 2010, claiming that our economy was under threat. They promptly lost our triple A rating, and have never got it back. They said we should have fixed the roof while the sun shone, and then underfunded our public services to already dangerous  levels when the pandemic struck. They said they would address the deficit and the debt, and we are now forecast to borrow £355 billion this year, with a debt of over 100% of GDP. This simply cannot be due to covid because they rejected the circumstances of the last Labour Government spending to rescue us from a global recession. They said they wanted to make a bonfire of red tape, but they have made trade ever-more difficult for our businesses not just across the channel, but even over the Irish sea, and this low-tax Conservative Chancellor has raised taxes back to 1960s levels.
What have all these failures meant for this Budget? There are several sector-specific elements that I want to mention and a longer-term systemic issue. We have not yet seen the consequences of the neglect of the pub industry, but when we are free to a socialise again, we will mourn the carcases of what were once thriving businesses that were given expensive obligations and unscientific restrictions and had their custom eliminated. The industry welcomes the grants that are available, but they will not be enough to save many pubs, especially because they will not be able to open to full trade indoors for some time. I welcome financial support for rugby league and urge Ministers to continue to talk to the sport’s authorities to ensure the success of the world cup, women’s world cup and physical disability rugby league world cup in Warrington this year.
Offering our NHS and social care staff a below-inflation pay deal is an insult, but it is revealing of a hostility this Government have to the frontline heroes who have sacrificed and led us through this ghastly year. The Conservatives’ talk of thanks is now the definition of empty claptrap. The continued neglect of a comprehensive social care system guarantees our inequalities and vulnerabilities for years to come, with the proposed cuts to Transport for the North guaranteeing that regional inequality will be entrenched.
At a systemic level, and as a member of the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I am alarmed that the Chancellor has scrapped the Industrial Strategy Council without even consulting us. We require an industrial strategy now more than ever to rebuild our economy and take advantage of the green industrial revolution that we need, including new nuclear. That is a truly retrograde step and disturbing short-sightedness when we desperately need an ambitious and broader plan.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). It seems like only yesterday that she and I went on a tour with the Doorkeepers when we first arrived here.
It is a brilliant Budget by the Chancellor, but I know that my constituents will want to know exactly what’s in it for them, so let’s get quickly to the point there: furlough has been extended—it has supported more than 10,000 people in Newcastle-under-Lyme; the self-employed will have more grants and the net has been cast wider; there is a universal credit extension for a further six months and equivalent support of £500 for working tax credits; there are business restart grants and recovery loans; and, importantly for a red wall town such as mine, there are freezes to alcohol duty and  fuel duty. The latter is particularly important as we lack public transport in Newcastle-under-Lyme; that is a very welcome thing for a town.
I want to talk about towns because there has been a lot of talk about them recently and I feel that the Labour party has missed the boat on towns. I wish to quote at some length:
“For far too long the ambitions, needs and values of nine million people in towns across Britain have not been heard.
Our economic model treats cities as engines of growth, which at best drag surrounding towns along in their wake, causing life to become harder, less secure and less hopeful for too many people in towns in recent decades.
Our political system is blind to the values and experiences of people who live in our towns, wrongly treating cities as a proxy for the national opinion.
After the EU Referendum starkly exposed the growing gulf between towns and cities, it is clear that this is no longer sustainable.”
Those are brilliant words. They are the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), when she launched the Centre For Towns in December 2017. I have read all that it had to say. It is a centre-left think tank, but I agree with an awful lot of what it said. I am really proud that the previous Government took that agenda into the general election and started thinking about how we can deliver for left-behind towns—communities such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and others in north Staffordshire.
Locally we have seen so much investment. We have had £11 million already through the future high streets fund, and we have a £25 million towns fund bid in with the Ministry at the moment. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on the £16.9 million success of Kidsgrove’s town deal bid, which will have knock-on effects for those living in the north of my constituency. I am pleased that even after all his largesse the Chancellor found that Newcastle-under-Lyme could also be a priority area for the UK community renewal fund, which will enable us to bid for a further £3 million, supporting skills, local businesses, communities and place—that is so important—and supporting people into employment. So I make no apology for what the Chancellor has done for the towns agenda. It is an agenda that has been neglected for far too long. The Labour party recognised that, through the hon. Member for Wigan, a few years ago. It is a shame it did not act on it, and that is why what happened in the 2019 election happened.

Emma Hardy: We have had the worst economic hit of any major economy and it is easy to see why. On 2 March 2020, the first death from covid—the death of a woman living in a care home—was recorded in the UK. On the same day, the Prime Minister finally attended a Cobra meeting, having skipped the first five. On 3 March 2020, the Prime Minister boasted about visiting a hospital and shaking hands with every covid patient. By contrast, on that day, the New Zealand Prime Minister brought in tough restrictions on inbound flights and told people not to go around shaking hands. On 10 March, the Cheltenham festival went ahead, with 250,000 people attending. One month later, 1,122 people had died from covid. These are not the actions of a Government doing everything they can; they are the actions of a Government slow to act, who allowed a crisis to become  a catastrophe, not just for health but for our economy. The price paid by people in Hull West and Hessle has been high, partly caused by the repeated lockdowns and an inability to keep the virus under control: businesses struggling, people excluded from support and unemployment rising.
We needed a Budget to match the difficulties we are facing and we have been badly let down. Freezing of the personal allowance against inflation is a stealth tax increase that will hit workers on the lowest incomes the hardest. The increase in statutory sick pay by 50p is pathetic and shows that the Government have learned nothing from last year. If we want people to self-isolate to bring down the number of cases, we must make it affordable for them to do so.
This Budget just forces poorer councils such as Hull to increase local tax. That is a trick that Conservative Governments have repeated time and again. Hull has the third lowest average council tax income in the country: 67% of housing stock is in band A and only 4% in band D. Compare that with neighbouring East Riding, which has 26% in band A and 15% in band D. That means that a 1% rise in council tax would provide double the amount to East Riding as to Hull. So people with lower incomes are facing higher taxes to fund the services they need. That is not levelling up; that is failing families.
You can see why I become angry when I read of those with links to the Conservatives having won £2 billion of Government contracts. But I should not be surprised because, even when the NHS saves the Prime Minister’s life, its staff are only rewarded with a 1% pay increase. We need a fairer system, not a Budget that hits struggling families the hardest. As it stands right now this is not a Budget that I can support.

Toby Perkins: It would be impossible not to recognise that the Chancellor, as he sat down to consider what was in his Budget, would have had the start of some very grey hairs in that carefully coiffured mop of his. It would be understood that the reason he was nervous doing that Budget was that he knew not only that he had presided over the worst recession of any major country, but that it had coincided with the period when we had entered the worst death rate of any major nation. He also knew that he was the Chancellor of a party that, after a previous global incident—the global banking crisis of 2008—blamed the Government for not cutting at a time of economic crisis, which everyone recognised to be entirely economically illiterate. So he was going to have to ignore the advice that his own party had been providing.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), a few moments ago—maybe accidentally —hit upon the point. She said that our economy would take many years possibly to recover to its previous position. Then she highlighted and welcomed a series of measures that were just a few months long. What we needed from the Budget was a long-term plan—a sense that the country had a plan for how we were going to make our economy work in future.
The right hon. Members for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May) spoke powerfully about the apparent end of the industrial strategy, because  more than ever before, what we needed from the Budget was a long-term plan. The Secretary of State for Education keeps looking at Germany and saying that we will have a skills environment that could match Germany, but in Germany not only do they have an engrained industrial strategy that all of the Government work collectively on— they also have individual Government Departments that work collectively together. Here, we have a skills approach that pays no attention to the economy or the industrial approach that the Treasury is taking and a confused picture for employers as to what is expected from them. We have a kickstart scheme that only 2,000 people have got jobs from, when we were promised 100,000. We have had a refusal to adopt the apprentice wage subsidy that the Labour party called for, which would have made a massive difference. We have an apprenticeship levy that is sending £330 million back every year. It is no wonder that the Government are painting such a gloomy economic picture.

Chris Stephens: The key challenge the Government have is to use public money to help rebuild the economy. I want to use my time to discuss public sector pay, and in particular pay for civil servants.
The civil service has risen to the challenge, whether that is employees in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs who have processed furlough payments to ensure that money goes into workers’ pockets, or those in the Department for Work and Pensions who have processed millions of universal credit claims to ensure that the vulnerable and those who need help the most get it. It is frankly baffling, therefore, that the Chancellor intends a pay freeze in this Budget. This means that the Cabinet Office advice is for a 0% pay remit that will contain for the first time ever no additional funding to support the lowest paid. The House should be aware that 19 MPs from six political parties, representing constituencies across the whole United Kingdom, wrote to the Chancellor twice asking him to reconsider. It beggars belief that he has not responded to either of those letters.
Yesterday was International Women’s Day—a chance to highlight the lack of pay coherence across the civil service, which creates huge inequality. The average pay for women in the civil service in 2020 was £28,650, whereas for men it was £30,880. That gap increases with part-time work, with women working part time at higher rates in all age bands. Delegated bargaining has been a disaster. It is wholly unacceptable that workers doing the same job at broadly the same grade suffer huge disparities in pay. The delegated system is costly, time-consuming and inefficient. It is simply unacceptable that there are 200 separate pay negotiations across UK Government Departments; that is a ludicrous situation.
There is a clear economic illiteracy to a public sector pay freeze. Public sector workers and civil servants spend their wages in the private sector economy. They do not hide their wages in a shoebox under the bed. They spend that money in the retail sector, the hospitality sector and the like. Civil servants should be given a proper reward, and we should end the pay disparities and reduce the number of pay negotiations. Public sector workers deserve better than this Budget from this Chancellor.

Apsana Begum: Before the pandemic, a decade of austerity left far too many trapped in low-paid, insecure work, consistently failed by the social security system. The brutality of this failing economic regime has been further exposed throughout the coronavirus pandemic, with at least 3 million people being left without economic support. The post-covid economic recovery needs to be built upon equitable distribution of income and wealth and new jobs. But beyond the rhetoric of levelling up, a redistributive economic vision that can deliver the future that people across the UK deserve was wholly missing from the Budget.
Despite finally listening to trade unions and campaigners with regard to the furlough scheme, there was not nearly enough to secure a recovery that puts people in a better position than when they entered the pandemic, never mind laying the foundations for the economy to meet the challenges of the future, including tackling climate change and mass unemployment. Yes, the main rate of corporation tax will increase from the present 19% to 25%, but not until 2023. At the same time, the rich and big business are being treated to mouth-watering tax giveaways and reliefs, despite unclear evidence about whether that will actually create the investment needed.
Beyond the limited extensions of job and business support schemes, there is very little about providing support for public services and public investment and a lasting boost to welfare for those hit hardest by the crisis. Not only was this Budget a missed opportunity for a care-led green recovery that creates decent, well-paid, unionised jobs and addresses our care crisis. It will create widespread inequality and precarity. It actually laid out significant cuts to public spending.
The lockdowns and an inadequate social security system have caused widespread financial hardship, unemployment and debt, and yet the Budget fell far short in tackling poverty, low pay and the deepening divisions in our society. It risks plunging more people into poverty and forcing them to queue outside food banks. The £20-per-week top-up of universal credit, which was introduced at the start of the pandemic, will be temporarily retained and will help some 6.5 million families, but only until September. At the same time, there is no increase in the statutory sick pay of £95.85 per week. Despite the ongoing performed gratitude towards those working on the frontline, the Government did not end the wage freeze for public sector workers. That is an absolute insult.
In the long run, we need an inclusive, intersectional recovery to rebuild our economy and recover from the pandemic and entrenched inequality. I am sick of looking around me and seeing the hard work and creativity of my local people often go unrewarded.

Ruth Jones: I have listened with great interest to the many contributions to the debate so far, but it is clear to me that the economy is still fundamentally unfair, and that is made worse by a Government intent on giving favours to their friends, not providing fairness to those we have all relied on during the past 12 months. The Government are working hard for crony billionaires, but hardly working at all for those who have healed our sick and kept us safe during  the pandemic. None of the measures that the Chancellor announced last week seeks to remedy the inherent injustice in our economy.
There are many in this House who believe that charity begins at home—none more so than the Prime Minister, who wants to establish a charitable fund for his own home decoration. A freedom of information request shows that £2.6 million has been spent in the past year refurbishing Downing Street to include a new media centre. That has drawn anger from a famous Jeremy—not the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but that well-known socialist Jeremy Clarkson.
We have all been working from home this year, but it is reasonable to ask why, if the Prime Minister can draw from the public funds to improve his place of work, has there been no public grant system to ease the pressures of working from home for my constituents in Newport West and millions of others around the UK? I am sure many others around the country share my frustration that that is where the Prime Minister’s focus has been in the past 12 months, instead of on saving lives and spending public funds wisely. There has been no public fund to allow people to make reasonable adjustments to their homes to make them safe, and no help to provide equipment that could have kept workers safe at home, rather than commuting to the office, but a scheme has been announced that will see businesses paid by the Government to buy swimming pools and jacuzzis.
The Government intend to increase the tax liabilities of ordinary working people before they ask the same of businesses. With the Government’s super deduction, they are in fact cutting taxes for businesses with no safeguards to ensure that corporation tax is still paid, but the state-sponsored saunas will be developed. Rather than austerity for Amazon, it is welfare for Walmart.
The real budget cuts are in the homes of our constituents. The Government can always guarantee contracts for Conservative party donors, but they refuse to guarantee support to thousands of self-employed contractors around the country. For a Government who purport to be run by the party of businesses, they have left many small and independent businesses to fight for themselves. For millions around this country, the Budget guarantees that it is not a fair fight at all. It is most definitely not about levelling up; rather, it is a divide-and-rule Budget.

Liz Twist: I want to use my three minutes to touch briefly on the aspects of the Budget that most directly affect many of my constituents. First, I want to speak about all those constituents who have been excluded from help throughout the coronavirus pandemic—people who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves without income, work and the means to keep their homes and businesses together. I want to speak particularly about those people who do not qualify for the various business support schemes or the self-employed schemes—the hairdressers, the beauty salons, the home-based businesses such as driving instructors, and those working in the arts and entertainment industries whose work has completely fallen away. I know how desperate those people are. They are making their voices heard, and so they should. It was heartbreaking for them to hear nothing in this Budget to help them. They are an essential part of our local and national economy and need help. Too many of them have found  out how hard it is to obtain universal credit and just how low the level of support is. I ask the Chancellor again to help these people, even now.
I want to talk about poverty among children and their families in my constituency. This issue is of particular concern in the north-east, where, according to the North East Child Poverty Commission, we were seeing the sharpest increase in child poverty even before the pandemic. The pandemic has only worsened what was an already unacceptable situation. I have spoken about this many times. Although I am happy to see the £20 uplift to universal credit being extended for the coming six months, this is not enough by any means, when more than half of the children living in poverty in the north-east are living in a home with at least one working adult. This is not a pandemic-only problem, and, despite what the Chancellor might want people to think, it is not a problem of worklessness either. Rather, it is an issue of insecure work and regional inequality of opportunity.
These problems will not go away in September, no matter how much the Chancellor may wish it so. For any talk about levelling up to be more than just talk, the Government must commit to tackling the underlying causes of child poverty in this country. We know that growing up in poverty can have lifelong consequences for children. Much more needs to be done to protect children and their future.
Finally, and briefly, I want to talk about the things that were left out. We face a huge climate change issue. We know this—we have declared a climate emergency. It is really disappointing to see no real significant measures to address that. Then there is social care. We all know there is a problem and that we need to improve the quality and availability of social care. The people doing it do a great job and we should pay them for it.

Naseem Shah: The covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented and it is true that none of us could have predicted what was going to happen, but the reality is that some areas of the country were merely surviving even before the pandemic. For those areas, the consequences have been more severe.
Work by the Office for National Statistics shows that those living in the most deprived neighbourhoods have been more than twice as likely to die from covid as those in the least deprived. We know that data on infections shows the same picture. Therefore, if we come out of this pandemic without truly levelling up and supporting the most deprived neighbourhoods, what we are really doing is putting those communities at further risk of deaths with future waves.
I am a Labour Member of Parliament, but I am here to represent my entire constituency of Bradford West, and, although party politics matter, nothing is more important than protecting our communities and our nation. When the risk is so severe, I say to the Government that this is not the time to be handing out contracts to their friends and funding towns based on party lines. Let us stop playing party politics and start supporting the poorest in society, who have already suffered enough.
The current unemployment rate in my constituency is 12.2%, which is ranked eighth highest in the entire country. Alongside years of austerity, job losses, economic  uncertainty and long-term covid restrictions have had a significant impact in Bradford. While I state the hard facts about the challenges that Bradford is facing, I am not here to complain but to make the argument to the Government that, together, we can change this. To take a line from the recent Bradford Council economic recovery plan, we do not want to go back to normal, because normal was not ever good enough. That is why I ask the Minister to meet me and hear the case that Bradford has to make.
Bradford was at the heart of the industrial revolution and is now at the heart of the northern powerhouse. We have one of the youngest populations not just in the UK, but in Europe. We have been ranked as the second most entrepreneurial city in Britain, and the University of Bradford was recently ranked, in a new study, No. 1 for impact on social mobility. Bradford is aiming to become the UK’s leading growth city. I am really grateful for the £50 million that we have already got from central Government for air quality. That contributes to the wider ambition, but this is about more than net zero. It is about incorporating sustainable development goals, one of which is our ambition to be the city of culture in 2025.
Bradford can be the catalyst, not just for unlocking the potential of the northern powerhouse, but for defining what levelling up can be. Bradford has an ambitious plan to provide people with the skills and jobs to transform Bradford into the fastest growing economy. We are aiming to become the UK’s leading growth city. Now is not the time for the red wall politics; now is the time to boost Britain and cities such as Bradford. Let us work together to level up Britain, and not just our friends.

Mike Amesbury: Not a day goes by without the utterance of the phrase “levelling up”, whether it be here in the Chamber, in Committee Rooms or in virtual conference after conference. In the Prime Minister’s first speech some two years ago, he referred to “forgotten people” in “left-behind towns”. The very same Prime Minister has been part of a Tory Government who have inflicted the most horrendous ideologically driven cuts for our public services and our most vulnerable citizens over the past decade.
It now becomes apparent that when the Prime Minister talked about left-behind towns and forgotten people struggling to make ends meet, he was not talking about those who live in Halton Lea or the Windmill Hill area of Runcorn in my constituency. Is he talking about the affluent citizens of Richmond, which the Chancellor just so happens to represent? Or is he talking about Newark, where the constituency of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is located? Both are placed in the highest priority category for levelling-up funding. Both are among the 40 out of 45 areas that just so happen to have Conservative MPs.
Let us do a quick comparison between Richmondshire and Halton. Halton is the 39th most deprived area in the UK, out of a total of 384. Richmondshire is 251st. The percentage of children living in low income families in Richmondshire was 11% in 2018-19. In Halton, it was more than double that. Unemployment is another comparison we could make. We could look at the proportion of the local population claiming universal credit. In Richmondshire, it is 2.9%. In Halton, it is  nearly 7% and rising. A baby girl born in Richmondshire can expect to live three years longer than one born in Halton. A baby boy can expect to live four and a half years longer, simply because of their postcode.
Of course, there is one final difference between our two areas. Richmond has a Conservative MP. Halton has two Labour MPs and a Labour council.

Bridget Phillipson: Last week’s Budget should have been the moment when our country was put back on the path to growth. It was an opportunity to put in place the building blocks of a recovery that benefits every part of our country. It was the chance to give people hope that, despite the challenges we faced over this last year, a better future lies ahead—a future in which all parts of the country share in our prosperity, where our economy is resilient so that everyone, no matter where they are and no matter where they live, can expect a good job, a reliable wage and a roof over their head.
We have heard from a great number of Members this afternoon and this evening—sadly too many for me to mention them all individually, and I hope they will forgive me— but the contributions from those on these Benches made it clear that we needed a Budget that not only addressed the devastating impact of the pandemic, but tackled the burning injustices that have built up over the past decade under successive Conservative Governments.
The sad reality is that the Budget does not even come close to resolving the problems our country faced going into the pandemic. There is no plan for jobs, no plan to rebuild our economy and no industrial strategy. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) observed, we have a Secretary of State for industrial strategy who does not even believe in industrial strategy. That does not bode well for our recovery as we come out of the pandemic.
The Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), was right to emphasise that we need to see a focus on growth as part of a transition to net zero. We should have seen that joined-up approach to support growth in every part of our country, with decisions based on genuine need, not narrow, partisan advantage.
It is not even the simple cynicism of saying, “Vote Tory, see local investment.” It is starting to feel a lot like, “Vote Tory, see your money go to richer areas.” Let us take the levelling-up fund, which pits regions and nations against each other for vital funding. We want to see proper funding for every region, but it is crucial that it is done transparently, fairly and with a say for local communities, and this fund fails on all those counts.
In the powerful contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), they exposed the reality of this. Although a new economic campus for the Treasury in Darlington will bring 750 jobs, we should be clear that almost 7,000 civil service jobs have been lost in the north-east alone since 2010. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that, as a north-east MP, I will always welcome jobs coming to  our region, but how will it help with the much-needed task of delivering an investment-led recovery? How will it drive wider private sector growth? How will it rebalance our economy as we emerge from this crisis?
Madam Deputy Speaker, like me, you will have now listened to many Budget speeches from many different Chancellors, and we all know the structure of these things. We sit here expectantly, wondering what the centrepiece will be, wondering what the final flourish will be, waiting for the moment when the Chancellor makes it clear what he thinks is the biggest announcement of the day. Some of us were hoping that perhaps, at long last, the Chancellor would grasp the enormous challenge of social care, which touches on so many lives up and down the country, but, no, once again it was passed over in silence. The Chancellor could not even bring himself to say the words, and in so doing he ignored the economic as well as the moral case for social care reform, as was so eloquently set out this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall).
That sense of disappointment was compounded when the Chancellor revealed that he has not had a new big idea in five years, and that he still believes that freeports will solve all our problems. I know that this is a hobby-horse of his; it has been for a while. In 2016, he claimed that they would deliver 80,000 new jobs in the UK. Those of us who have followed closely his approach to the pandemic have been unsurprised to learn of the rather simplistic economic modelling underpinning these claims, simply taking the total number of existing jobs in free zones in the US and scaling it down for our smaller population and for our smaller labour force.
The truth is that there is little evidence that freeports create new jobs. Instead, they simply risk moving them around, with the additional risk that deprivation is intensified in the areas just beyond the immediate vicinity of the freeport. They do not make companies more productive. They do not increase demand for the goods in the wider economy or increase the tax take for the Treasury. On the contrary, we know that there are real concerns about tax evasion and the risk of smuggling associated with freeports. With Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs left increasingly overstretched over the past 10 years, I fear that our country is not well-placed to manage these new risks.
We can only build a strong economy if we secure the recovery, and that means action now to secure jobs and to support job creation in the future, and it means clear steps to help businesses through the worst of this crisis. It means ambitious measures that would help build a greener, fairer and more dynamic economy, and on every one of these measures, the Budget falls short.
For the half a million unemployed young people who desperately need hope for a better tomorrow, there is still nothing on offer but the Chancellor’s kickstart scheme, which has only created enough opportunities for just one in 49 eligible young people. Likewise, his much vaunted restart scheme has not even begun and will not begin to meet demand until March 2022, months after unemployment is estimated to peak at 2.2 million. It beggars belief that, in the grips of the worst economic crisis for a generation where our economy has taken the biggest hit of any major economy, this is the best that the Government can muster.
But it is worse than that. At the point at which the furlough scheme is due to end and joblessness peaks, what do the Government plan to do? They plan to cut social security at a time when families will need it the most, sucking demand out of our economy in the process. We can only support job creation if we ensure that businesses remain viable now and into the future. That means helping as many as possible survive through these incredibly challenging circumstances in which they find themselves, not looking on while many good businesses teeter on the edge, unable to deal with the mountain of debt that they have built up over the past year.
The incredible work of our NHS staff and volunteers gives us all hope that soon we will see a semblance of normality return, which is why businesses are so frustrated. They feel that the Government are simply not listening to the immediate pressures they face. While of course Labour wants to see business investing and driving job creation, we also want to see Government playing their full and proper role. That means providing much-needed investment to support our recovery and bringing forward £30 billion of capital spending, not cutting capital spending by £500 million in the next financial year and cutting the green homes grant by £1 billion.
The pattern is clear: on every measure, the Government have fallen short, with no coherent strategy to rebuild and rebalance our economy. Indeed, the only obvious factor linking these policies is a complete lack of ambition, other than to take us back to the failed policies of the last decade—the same approach that weakened the foundations of our economy and left us so exposed when the virus hit. We simply cannot afford another lost decade.
Our country should take a different path: a future in which Government forge a new partnership with businesses and trade unions to get Britain back to work and support the creation of good, secure, clean jobs; a future in which Government take a strategic and fair approach to ensuring opportunity and prosperity in every region and nation of the UK; a future in which our economy is strong and resilient, making our country the best place to grow up in and the best place to grow old in. This is the future that our country deserves, and it is the future for which Labour will fight.

Steve Barclay: It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the Government. In recent days, the House has debated the Budget through the lens of the Government’s response to the pandemic, including the comprehensive efforts we have made to protect jobs and businesses. Today, the focus of the debate has been on looking forward and discussing the ways in which last week’s Budget prepares the country for an investment-led recovery. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the very constructive contributions that we have had throughout the debate.
This is a Budget in three parts: first, it protects jobs and livelihoods and provides additional support to get the British people and businesses through the crisis; secondly, it is clear and honest about the need to fix the public finances once we are on the way to recovery; and thirdly, it begins the essential work of building our future economy, including by providing the opportunity to level up across the country.
The Budget announced an additional £65 billion of measures over this year and next to support the economy in response to coronavirus. Taking into account the support in last November’s spending review, that figure for this year and next is £352 billion. Add in measures from the spring Budget last year and the figure rises to £407 billion. In other words, a comprehensive and sustained economic shock has been met with a comprehensive and sustained response.
In fact, thanks to the actions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Office for Budget Responsibility now expects the UK economy to recover to its pre-crisis level six months earlier than originally expected. That means the second rather than the fourth quarter of 2022. Unemployment, meanwhile, is expected to peak at around 6.5% instead of the nearly 12% that was feared last summer. As the Resolution Foundation has observed, this would be by far the lowest unemployment peak in any recent recession, despite this being the deepest downturn for 300 years.
The Budget maintains a number of essential further support measures, including the furlough scheme, which has been extended until the end of September, and support for the self-employed, which will also continue until September. Indeed, anyone who had filled in a tax return before last Wednesday will now be able to claim the fourth and fifth grants that have been made available for the self-employed, supporting more than 600,000 people on top of those already helped.
The Budget also maintains the universal credit uplift of £20 a week for a further six months, provides working tax credit claimants with equivalent support over the same timeframe and reaffirms our commitment to increase the national living wage to £8.91 from April. We announced a restart grant from April to help businesses to reopen and get going again and a new recovery loan scheme to replace our earlier bounce back loans and coronavirus interruption loans. We will continue to deliver a package that is unprecedented in its scope and scale and which reflects the wider strategy for cautiously reopening the economy, as set out in the Government’s road map. Above all, the distribution analysis shows that this is a package of measures that has supported those on the lowest incomes the most.
Over the course of the debate today, we have heard powerful contributions from a wide range of Members, and I want to draw attention to a number in particular. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) spoke of the importance of skills, innovation and investing in human capital, which a number of Budget measures set out. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) recognised the importance of additional economic support, particularly in the hospitality, leisure and tourism industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) reinforced the Government’s commitment to a green recovery and reskilling to take advantage of the investment set out in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) also highlighted the importance of green innovation, which is reflected in the commitment to double the spending on energy innovation, with a new £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) highlighted the key opportunity provided by our leadership of COP26.  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) highlighted the value of the super deduction policy. In answer to his question on fishing, I can confirm that fishing boats are within scope either for the super deduction or the related 50% first-year allowance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) praised my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the vital support that businesses in his constituency, particularly in the hospitality sector, have received throughout the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) praised the Budget as one that looks after jobs and looks after the future, including the new tech campus that will help the next generation in his area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) praised the additional funding for the Welsh Government and the investment through the accelerated city deals. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) praised the successful freeport bid for Felixstowe and the value of the towns fund, which will make such a difference to the regeneration of his local community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) praised the expansion of the self-employment income support scheme, which will support a further 600,000 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and many other Members praised the super deduction and the great benefits it will have for investment, as UK business leads that investment in our recovery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) welcomed the skills package, which will help to support our economic recovery from the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) welcomed the 5% VAT cut extension and rightly drew the House’s attention to the importance of Lord Hill’s listing review and the wider opportunities of the FinTech industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) praised the Budget’s focus on levelling up and the towns agenda, and we make no apology for the frequency with which we will talk about our commitment to levelling up. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) recognised the package of business support and the stimulus for jobs in his constituency that is offered by the super deduction.
Given the time, I will not run through the wide range of measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out or how, in addressing some of the issues raised by those on the Opposition Front Bench, he will boost productivity through schemes such as Help to Grow and Help to Grow: Digital, the plans to ensure that the UK is a scientific superpower, the £400 million annual uplift in science spending, the “future fund: breakthrough” scheme, the lifetime skills guarantee, the kickstart scheme, the restart scheme, the £3,000 for apprenticeships, the tripling of traineeships and the Government’s commitment to skills and investment.
Over the last year, this country has experienced a 10% fall in GDP—the largest fall in 300 years. In response, the Chancellor has presented a plan that will continue to protect jobs and livelihoods, that supports the British people and businesses through this moment of crisis, and that begins to fix the public finances and build our  future economy. This is a Budget that, as the Chancellor rightly said, “meets the moment”; I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That income tax is charged for the tax year 2021-22.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).

Rosie Winterton: I am now required under Standing Order No. 51(3) to put successively, without further debate, the Question on each of the Ways and Means motions numbered 2 to 80, on which the Bill is to be brought in. These motions are set out in a separate paper distributed with today’s Order Paper.

2. Income tax (main rates)

Resolved,
That for the tax year 2021-22 the main rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the basic rate is 20%,
(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

3. Income tax (default and savings rates)

Resolved,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2021-22 the default rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the default basic rate is 20%,
(b) the default higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the default additional rate is 45%.
(2) For the tax year 2021-22 the savings rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the savings basic rate is 20%,
(b) the savings higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the savings additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

4. Income tax (starting rate limit for savings)

Resolved,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2021-22, the amount specified in section 12(3) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (the starting rate limit for savings) is “£5,000”.
(2) Accordingly, section 21 of that Act (indexation) does not apply in relation to the starting rate limit for savings for that tax year.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

5. Basic rate limit and personal allowance (future years)

Question put,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year for each of the following amounts to remain at the amount specified for the tax year 2021-22—
(a) the amount specified in section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (basic rate limit), and
(b) the amount specified in section 35(1) of that Act (personal allowance).

The House divided: Ayes 360, Noes 274.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

6. Corporation tax (charge and main rate for financial years 2022 and 2023)

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made for the charging of corporation tax, and for setting the main rate of corporation tax, for the financial years 2022 and 2023.

7. Corporation tax (small companies rate)

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year—
(a) charging corporation tax at a rate lower than the main rate on profits not exceeding a specified amount,
(b) reducing the amount of corporation tax chargeable in cases where profits exceed that amount but do not exceed a higher specified amount, and
(c) amending Chapter 3A of Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (corporation tax rates on ring fence profits).

8. Rate of diverted profits tax

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision taking effect in a future year may be made increasing the percentage specified in section 79(2)(a) of the Finance Act 2015.

9. Capital allowances (super-deduction etc)

Resolved,
That provision may be made for temporary first-year allowances in respect of expenditure incurred on plant or machinery by companies within the charge to corporation tax, including provision for the amount of expenditure qualifying for an allowance to be treated as being greater than the actual amount of the expenditure.

10. Extension of temporary increase in annual investment allowance

Resolved,
That provision may be made extending the temporary increase in the maximum amount of annual investment allowance under section 51A of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 from two years to three years.

11. Capital allowances (oil and gas)

Resolved,
That provision may be made about expenditure incurred in relation to the decommissioning of offshore plant or machinery for the purposes of sections 164 and 165 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001.

12. Capital allowances (extensions of leases for reasons related to coronavirus)

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made disapplying sections 70YB and 70YC of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 in cases involving the extension of long funding operating leases, or plant or machinery leases that are not long funding leases, for reasons related to coronavirus.

13. Temporary extension of periods to which trade losses etc may be carried back

Resolved,
That provision may be made for a temporary extension of the periods to which losses made in a trade, profession or vocation may be carried back.

14. Corporation tax (R&D tax credits)

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made for limiting the amount of R&D tax credit to which a small or medium-sized enterprise may be entitled.

15. Extension of social investment tax relief

Resolved,
That provision may be made substituting a later date for the date mentioned in—
(a) section 257K(1)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (date by which investment must be made to qualify for social investment tax relief), and
(b) paragraphs 1(3)(b) and 2(2)(b) of Schedule 8B to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (date by which gains re-invested in social enterprises must accrue to qualify for hold-over relief).

16. Income tax (workers’ services provided through Intermediaries)

Resolved,
That—
(1) Chapter 10 of Part 2 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (workers’ services provided through intermediaries to public authorities or medium or large clients) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 61N (worker treated as receiving earnings from employment)—
(a) in subsection (3), for “and 61V” substitute “, 61V and 61WA”;
(b) in subsection (5), for “section 61V” substitute “sections 61V and 61WA”;
(c) in subsection (5A), in the words before paragraph (a), for “and 61V” substitute “, 61V and 61WA”.
(3) In section 61O (conditions where intermediary is a company)—
(a) in subsection (1), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) subsection (1A) or (1B) is satisfied.”;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) This subsection is satisfied where the worker has a material interest in the intermediary.
(1B) This subsection is satisfied where—
(a) the worker has a non-material interest in the intermediary,
(b) the worker—
(i) has received,
(ii) has rights which entitle, or which in any circumstances would entitle, the worker to receive, or
(iii) expects to receive,
a chain payment from the intermediary, and
(c) the chain payment does not, or will not, wholly constitute employment income of the worker (apart from as a result of this Chapter).”;
(c) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The worker is treated as having a non-material interest in the intermediary if—
(a) the worker, alone or with one or more associates of the worker, or
(b) an associate of the worker, with or without other associates of the worker,
has a non-material interest in the intermediary.
(4B) For this purpose a non-material interest means—
(a) beneficial ownership of, or the ability to control, directly or through the medium of other companies or by any other indirect means, 5% or less of the ordinary share capital of the company,
(b) possession of, or entitlement to acquire, rights entitling the holder to receive 5% or less of any distributions that may be made by the company, or
(c) where the company is a close company, possession of, or entitlement to acquire, rights that would in the event of the winding up of the company, or in any other circumstances, entitle the holder to receive 5% or less of the assets that would then be available for distribution among the participators.
(4C) In subsection (4B)(c) “participator” has the meaning given by section 454 of CTA 2010.”
(4) In section 61S(4) (deductions from chain payments), for “services-provider” substitute “relevant person”.
(5) In section 61T(3) (client-led status disagreement process), for “section 61V” substitute “sections 61V and 61WA”.
(6) In section 61U (information to be provided by worker and consequences of failure)—
(a) in the heading, after “worker” insert “or intermediary”;
(b) in subsection (1), for “the worker” substitute “the relevant person”;
(c) in subsection (2), for “the worker” substitute “the relevant person”;
(d) in subsection (3), after “In this section” insert “—
“relevant person” means the worker or, in a case where the worker has not complied with subsection (1), the intermediary;”.
(7) In section 61V (consequences of providing fraudulent information)—
(a) in subsection (2), in the words before paragraph (a), for “services-provider” substitute “relevant person (or if more than one, the first relevant person) in relation to whom the fraudulent documentation condition is met”;
(b) in subsection (3), for “involves the services-provider” substitute “may involve a services-provider”;
(c) in subsection (5), after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) a person in the chain who is resident in the United Kingdom or has a place of business in the United Kingdom.”
(8) After section 61W insert—
“61WAAnti-avoidance
(1) This section applies if in any case at least one relevant person in a chain participates in a relevant avoidance arrangement.
(2) An arrangement is a “relevant avoidance arrangement” if its main purpose, or one of its main purposes, is to secure a tax advantage by securing that at least one of the conditions mentioned in section 61O or 61P is not met in relation to an intermediary.
(3) Section 61N(3) has effect as if the reference to the fee-payer were a reference to the participating person, but—
(a) section 61N(4) continues to have effect as if the reference to the fee-payer were a reference to the deemed employer, and
(b) Step 1 of section 61Q(1) continues to have effect as referring to the chain payment made by the deemed employer.
(4) The participating person is—
(a) in a case where only one relevant person participates in the arrangement, that person;
(b) in any other case the highest relevant person in the chain who participated in the arrangement and from whom HMRC considers there is a realistic prospect of recovering, within a reasonable period, the amount of tax that would have been paid (or not repaid) in the absence of the arrangement.
(5) Subsection (3) has effect even though that may involve a participating person being treated as both employer and employee in relation to the deemed employment under section 61N(3).
(6) In this section—
“arrangement” includes any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable);
“deemed employer” means a person who would, but for this section, be treated by section 61N(3) as making a payment to the worker;
“relevant person” means—
(a) the worker;
(b) a person who is resident in the United Kingdom or who has a place of business in the United Kingdom;
“tax” means income tax (and “tax advantage” is to be construed accordingly”);
“tax advantage” includes—
(a) avoidance or reduction of a charge to tax or an assessment to tax,
(b) repayment or increased repayment of tax,
(c) avoidance of a possible assessment to tax, and
(d) deferral of a payment of tax or advancement of a repayment of tax.”
(9) In section 688AA(2)(a) (workers’ services provided through intermediaries: recovery of PAYE), after “to a worker” insert “(other than by virtue of section 61WA)”.
(10) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to deemed direct payments treated as made on or after 6 April 2021.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

17. Income tax (payments on termination of employment)

Resolved,
That—
(1) Section 27 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (UK-based earnings for year when employee not resident in UK) is amended in accordance with paragraphs (2) to (5).
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, or
(c) general earnings to which section 402B (termination payments, and other benefits, that cannot benefit from the section 403 threshold, to be treated as earnings) applies.”
(3) In subsection (2), for “(1)” substitute “(1)(a) or (b)”.
(4) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The percentage of the general earnings within subsection (1)(c) that are an amount of “taxable earnings” from the employment in the tax year in which they are received is given by—
where—
B is the total amount of general earnings from the employment that it is reasonable to assume the employee would have received in respect of the post- employment notice period (within the meaning given by section 402E(5)) if the employee’s employment had not been terminated until the end of that period, and
A is the total amount of those general earnings that it is reasonable to assume would have been taxable earnings by virtue of subsection (1)(a) or (b).”
(5) In subsection (3), for “Subsection (2) applies” substitute “Subsections (2) and (2A) apply”.
(6) In section 402B of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (termination payments, and other benefits, that cannot benefit from the section 403 threshold, to be treated as earnings), in subsection (1)—
(a) the words from “is treated” to the end become paragraph (a), and
(b) after that paragraph insert “, but
(b) is not capable of being an amount to which section 27 applies by virtue of subsection 1(a) or (b) of that section (UK-based taxable earnings for year when employee not resident in UK).”
(7) In section 402D of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (post-employment notice pay)—
(a) in subsection (3), for “and (6)” substitute “, (6) and (6A)”;
(b) in subsection (6), after “month, ” insert “the employee’s basic pay is paid in equal monthly instalments,”;
(c) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) In any other case where the last pay period of the employee to end before the trigger date is a month and the employee’s basic pay is paid in equal monthly instalments, then—
BP is the employee’s basic pay from the employment in respect of the last pay period of the employee to end before the trigger date,
P is 30.42, and
D is the number of days in the post-employment notice period.”
(8) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to general earnings to which section 402B of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 applies that are paid—
(a) on or after 6 April 2021, and
(b) in connection with a termination of employment that takes place on or after that date.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

18. Income tax (cash equivalent benefit of a zero emissions van)

Resolved,
That—
(1) Section 155 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (cash equivalent of the benefit of a van) is amended in accordance with this Resolution.
(2) In subsection (1B)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “2021-22” substitute “2020-21”;
(b) omit the “and” at the end of that paragraph;
(c) after that paragraph insert—
“(aa) if the van cannot in any circumstances emit CO2 by being driven and the tax year is 2021-22 or a subsequent tax year, the cash equivalent is nil, and”.
(3) In subsection (1C) omit paragraph (g).
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

19. Income tax (enterprise management incentives)

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made modifying requirements relating to enterprise management incentives in relation to persons who are not required to work for reasons connected with coronavirus disease.

20. Income tax (cycle to work)

Resolved,
That provision may be made for Condition B in section 244(3) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (requirement that cycle or cyclist’s safety equipment is used mainly for commuting etc) to be treated as met for the period commencing with 16 March 2020 and ending with 5 April 2022 in relation to the provision for an employee of a cycle or cyclist’s safety equipment that was first provided before 21 December 2020.

21. Income tax (coronavirus tests in 2021-22)

Resolved,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2021-22, no liability to income tax arises in respect of—
(a) the provision to an employee of a coronavirus test, or
(b) the payment or reimbursement, to or in respect of an employee, of the cost of such a test.
(2) In this Resolution “coronavirus test” means a test which detects the presence of a viral antigen or viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) specific to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
(3) This Resolution has effect as if it were contained in Part 4 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (employment income: exceptions).
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

22. Income tax (coronavirus tests in other years)

Resolved,
That—
(a) provision may be made that, for the tax year 2020-21, no liability to income tax arises on the provision of coronavirus tests to employees, or on the payment or reimbursement of the costs of such tests, and
(b) (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision taking effect in a future year may be made to the same effect.

23. Income tax (statutory parental bereavement pay)

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made that the reference to variation in paragraph 62(6) of Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 2017 (optional remuneration arrangements) does not include any variation which occurs in connection with a person’s entitlement to statutory parental bereavement pay.

24. Standard lifetime allowance (2021-22)

Resolved,
That section 218(2C) and (2D) of the Finance Act 2004 (indexation of standard lifetime allowance) do not apply in relation to the standard lifetime allowance for the tax year 2021-22 (so that the amount of the standard lifetime allowance for that tax year remains at the amount for the tax year 2020-21, namely £1,073,100).
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

25. Standard lifetime allowance (future years)

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision taking effect in a future year may be made for the amount of the standard lifetime allowance to remain at the amount for the tax year 2020-21.

26. Pension schemes (collective money purchase benefits)

Resolved,
That provision may be made about the treatment under Part 4 of the Finance Act 2004 of collective money purchase benefits.

27. Construction industry scheme

Resolved,
That—
Introductory
(1) Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Finance Act 2004 (construction industry scheme) is amended as follows (and, in the following provisions, that Act is referred to as “FA 2004”).
Contractors
(2) Section 59 of FA 2004 (contractors) is amended in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4).
(3) In subsection (1), for paragraph (l) substitute—
“(2) a person carrying on a business at any time if, in the period of one year ending with that time, the person’s expenditure on construction operations exceeds £3,000,000.”
(4) For subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
“(2) But this section only applies to a body or person falling within any of paragraphs (b) to (fa) or (h) to (k) of subsection (1) at any time if, in the period of one year ending with that time, the body or person’s expenditure on construction operations exceeds £3,000,000.
(3) Where the condition in subsection (1)(l) or (2) is met in relation to a body or person at any time, the body or person may elect for the condition to be treated as no longer being met if, at that time, the body or person is not expected to make any further expenditure on construction operations.
(3A) Where the condition in subsection (1)(l) or (2) ceases to be met in relation to a body or person at any time, the body or person may elect for the condition to be treated as continuing to be met until the body or person is not expected to make any further expenditure on construction operations.
(3B) Subsections (3) and (3A) do not prevent the condition in subsection (1)(l) or (2) from being met again in relation to the body or person.”
(5) Paragraph (6) applies where—
(a) the condition in section 59(1)(l) or (2) of FA 2004 was met in relation to a body or person immediately before the amendments made by paragraphs (3) and (4) come into force, and
(b) on the coming into force of those amendments, that condition would (but for paragraph (6)) cease to be met in relation to the body or person.
(6) The condition in section 59(1)(l) or (2) of FA 2004 (as the case may be) is treated as continuing to be met in relation to the body or person until the body or person is not expected to make any further expenditure on construction operations (within the meaning given by section 74 of FA 2004).
Deductions for materials
(7) In section 61(1) of FA 2004 (deductions on account of tax from contract payments), for “any other person” substitute “the sub-contractor”.
Grace period
(8) In section 61 of FA 2004 (deductions on account of tax from contract payments), after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) Subsection (5) applies where the contractor is a person falling within section 59(1)(l).
(5) An officer of Revenue and Customs may, if the officer considers it appropriate to do so, by notice in writing—
(a) exempt the contractor from the requirement to deduct sums from contract payments under subsection (1) for a specified period;
(b) treat the contractor as if such an exemption had applied in relation to—
(i) specified contract payments made before the date of the notice, or
(ii) contract payments made during a specified period before the date of the notice.
(6) The period referred to in subsection (5)(a)—
(a) must not exceed 90 days, but
(b) may be extended by one or more further notices under subsection (5).
(7) In subsection (5) “specified” means specified in the notice.”
Restrictions on set-off
(9) Section 62 of FA 2004 (treatment of sums deducted) is amended as follows.
(10) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may include provision authorising an officer of Revenue and Customs to—
(a) correct an error or omission relating to a set-off claim;
(b) remove a set-off claim;
(c) prohibit a person from making a further set-off claim, for a specified period or indefinitely.
(3B) Regulations under subsection (3) that include provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3A) may, for example, include provision—
(a) allowing the things mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) to (c) to be done by amending a return (including a return not made under the regulations) or otherwise;
(b) allowing a set-off claim to be removed where the claimant is not eligible to make the claim (including where the claimant is not a company, not a sub-contractor, or is registered for gross payment);
(c) requiring information to be given to the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs, at such times as may be specified in the regulations.
(3C) In subsections (3A) and (3B), “set-off claim” means a claim for treating a sum deducted under section 61 as paid on account of any relevant liabilities.”
(11) In subsection (4), for “subsection (3)” substitute “this section”.
Penalties
(12) For section 72 of FA 2004 (penalties) substitute—
“72 Penalties
(1) This section applies in a case within subsection (2), (3) or (4).
(2) A case is within this subsection if a person (“A”)—
(a) makes a statement, or furnishes a document, which A knows to be false in a material particular, or
(b) recklessly makes a statement, or furnishes a document, which is false in a material particular,
for the purpose of becoming registered for gross payment or for payment under deduction.
(3) A case is within this subsection if a person (“A”) who exercises influence or control over another person (“B”) or is in a position to do so —
(a) makes a statement, or furnishes a document, which A knows to be false in a material particular, or
(b) recklessly makes a statement, or furnishes a document, which is false in a material particular,
for the purpose of enabling or facilitating B to become registered for gross payment or for payment under deduction.
(4) A case is within this subsection if a person (“A”) who exercises influence or control over another person (“B”) or is in a position to do so—
(a) encourages B to make a statement, or furnish a document, which A knows to be false in a material particular, or
(b) encourages B to make a statement or furnish a document—
(i) which is false in a material particular, and
(ii) where A is reckless as to whether the statement or document is false in a material particular,
for the purpose of enabling or facilitating B to become registered for gross payment or for payment under deduction.
(5) In a case where this section applies, A is liable to a penalty not exceeding £3,000.”
Commencement
(13) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2021-22 and subsequent tax years.
(14) But the amendment made by paragraph (12) has no effect in relation to a statement made, or document furnished, before 6 April 2021.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

28. Covid-19 support scheme (working households receiving tax credits)

Resolved,
That—
(1) This Resolution applies to a payment which—
(a) is made by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the exercise of a function which they have as a result of a direction given by the Treasury under section 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, and
(b) is made to a person by reason of the person’s receipt of any tax credit specified in the direction on a date so specified.
(2) No liability to income tax arises in respect of a payment to which this Resolution applies.
(3) But paragraph (2) does not prevent the application of paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2020 (charge to income tax where person not entitled to coronavirus support payment) in relation to a payment to which this Resolution applies.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

29. Self-employment income support scheme

Resolved,
That provision may be made—
(a) for payments made under the self-employment income support scheme, other than a payment in respect of a partner of a firm where the payment is distributed amongst the partners, to be treated as receipts of a revenue nature of the tax year in which they are received, and
(a) amending section 106(3) of, and paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 to, the Finance Act 2020 in relation to the self-employment income support scheme.

30. Deductions for voluntary repayments

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for a payment made to a public authority in respect of a charge to be deductible for income tax or corporation tax purposes in circumstances where that charge has been waived or reduced for purposes connected with the provision of support to businesses in connection with coronavirus.

31. Repeal of provisions relating to the Interest and Royalties Directive

Resolved,
That—
(1) The following provisions are repealed—
(a) sections 757 to 767 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (exemption from income tax for certain interest and royalty payments) and the italic heading before those sections, and
(b) sections 914 to 917 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (discretion to make royalty payments gross) and the italic heading before those sections;
and the remainder of this Resolution makes amendments consequential on the repeal of those provisions.
(2) In section 98 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (special returns, etc)—
(a)in subsection (4A)(b) omit “, (4DA)”, and
(b) omit subsection (4DA).
(3) In section 42(9) of the Finance Act 2016 (section 758 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 not to apply to certain royalty payments)—
(a) in paragraph (b), at the end insert “under arrangements (within the meaning of section 917A of Income Tax Act 2007) entered into before that day”,
(b) omit paragraph (c) (but not the “and” at the end of it), and
(c) for the words after paragraph (d) substitute “the arrangements are to be regarded as DTA tax avoidance arrangements for the purposes of section 917A of ITA 2007”.
(4) In consequence of the repeal of section 762 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 made by paragraph (1), the Exemption From Tax For Certain Interest Payments Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/2622) are revoked (and, accordingly, exemption notices issued in accordance with those regulations are cancelled).
(5) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to—
(a) payments made on or after 1 June 2021, and
(b) payments made in disqualifying circumstances on or after 3 March 2021 but before 1 June 2021.
(6) A payment is made in “disqualifying circumstances” if it is made directly or indirectly in consequence of, or otherwise in connection with, any arrangements the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of which is to secure that the provisions mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) continue to have effect in relation to it.
(7) For this purpose “arrangements” includes any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable).
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

32. Payments made to victims of modern slavery etc

Resolved,
That provision may be made (including provision having retrospective effect) exempting from income tax any payments made by or on behalf of a public authority for the purpose of providing assistance and support to persons reasonably regarded as victims of slavery or human trafficking.

33. Hybrid and other mismatches

Resolved,
That provision may be made (including provision having retrospective effect) amending Part 6A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010.

34. Corporation tax (relief for losses and other amounts)

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made—
(a) amending Part 7ZA of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (restrictions on deductions for carried-forward losses and other amounts), and
(b) amending sections 137 (deductions from total profits for in-year group relief), 188BE (restriction on surrendering carried-forward losses for group relief), 188DD (claimant company’s relevant maximum for overlapping period), and 719 and 721 (which concern changes in the ownership of a company) of that Act.

35. Corporate interest restriction (minor amendments)

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending—
(a) section 452 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (Real Estate Investment Trusts), and
(b) Schedule 7A to that Act in relation to penalties under paragraph 29 of that Schedule.

36. Northern Ireland Housing Executive

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made exempting the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from corporation tax.

37. Capital gains tax (annual exempt amount for 2021-22)

Resolved,
That section 1L of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (which provides for an increase in the annual exempt amount to reflect increases in CPI) does not apply for the tax year 2021-22 (so that the annual exempt amount for that tax year remains at the amount for the tax year 2020-21, namely £12,300).
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

38. Capital gains tax (annual exempt amount for future years)

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision taking effect in a future year may be made for the annual exempt amount to remain at the amount for the tax year 2020-21.

39. Capital gains tax (hold-over relief for foreign-controlled companies)

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 167(2) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

40. Plastic packaging tax

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision taking effect in a future year may be made for a new tax to be charged on plastic packaging components produced in, or imported into, the United Kingdom.

41. Inheritance tax (nil rate band etc)

Resolved,
That provision may be made for inheritance tax purposes for the amount of the nil rate band, the residential enhancement and the taper threshold to remain at their current amounts, including provision (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) taking effect in a future year.

42. Stamp duty land tax (reduced rates on residential property for temporary period)

Resolved,
That—
(1) The Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (reduced rates of SDLT on residential property for a temporary period)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b) (which specifies the end of that temporary period), for “31 March 2021” substitute “30 June 2021”,
(b) in subsections (1) and (6)(a), for “temporary” substitute “initial temporary”, and
(c) in the heading, for “a temporary” substitute “an initial temporary”.
(3) After that section insert—
“1A Further period for reduced rates of SDLT on residential property
(1) This section makes modifications of Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 in relation to any land transaction the effective date of which falls in the period (“the further temporary relief period”)—
(a) beginning with 1 July 2021, and
(b) ending with 30 September 2021.
(2) Section 55(1B) (amount of stamp duty land tax chargeable: general) has effect as if for Table A there were substituted—

  

  So much as does not exceed £250,000
  0%


  So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000
  5%


  So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1,500,000
  10%


  The remainder (if any)
  12%”.

  

(3) Schedule 4ZA (higher rates of stamp duty land tax for additional dwellings etc) has effect as if for the Table A in section 55(1B) mentioned in paragraph 1(2) there were substituted—

  

  So much as does not exceed £250,000
  3%


  So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000
  8%


  So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1,500,000
  13%


  The remainder (if any)
  15%”.

  

(4) Paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 5 (amount of SDLT chargeable in respect of rent) has effect as if for Table A there were substituted—

  

  £0 to £250,000
  0%


  Over £250,000
  1%

  

(5) In a case where—
(a) as a result of section 44(4) of the Finance Act 2003 the effective date of a land transaction falls in the further temporary relief period, and
(b) the contract concerned is completed by a conveyance after that period ends,
section 44(8) of that Act is not to apply in relation to that conveyance if the sole reason that (but for this subsection) it would have applied is that the modifications made by this section have no effect in relation to that conveyance.
(6) Section 44(10) of the Finance Act 2003 applies for the purposes of subsection (5).”
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

43. Stamp duty land tax (increased rates for non-resident transactions)

Resolved,
That—
(1) In the Finance Act 2003, Part 4 (stamp duty land tax) is amended in accordance with paragraphs (2) to (5).
(2) After section 75 insert—
“Increased rates for non-resident transactions
75ZA Increased rates for non-resident transactions
(1) In its application for the purpose of determining the amount of tax chargeable in respect of a chargeable transaction that is a non-resident transaction, this Part has effect as if 2% were added to each rate specified in the rate-specifying provisions.
(2) The “rate-specifying provisions” are—
(a) in section 55(1B), Table A;
(b) in Schedule 4ZA, in paragraph 1(2), Table A;
(c) in Schedule 4A, paragraph 3(1)(a);
(d) in Schedule 5, in paragraph 2(3), Table A;
(e) in Schedule 6ZA, in paragraph 4, Table A;
(f) in section 74(1A), Step 4.
(3) Schedule 9A defines “non-resident transaction” and makes further provision in connection with this section.
Anti-avoidance”.
(3) In section 101 (unit trust schemes), in subsection (7), at the end insert “, or
Schedule 9A (increased rates for non-resident transactions).”
(4) In section 122 (index of defined expressions), in the table, at the appropriate place insert—

  

  “non-resident transaction
  Schedule 9A, paragraph 2”

  

(5) After Schedule 9 insert—

“SCHEDULE 9A - Increased Rates for non-resident Transactions

Part 1 - Introduction

1 This Schedule is arranged as follows—
(a) Part 2 explains how to determine for the purposes of this Part of this Act whether a chargeable transaction is a “non-resident transaction”;
(b) Part 3 explains how to determine for the purposes of this Schedule whether an individual is “non-resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction;
(c) Part 4 explains how to determine for the purposes of this Schedule whether a company is “non-resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction;
(d) Part 5 contains special rules applying in relation to particular purchasers and transactions;
(e) Part 6 contains supplementary provision.

Part 2 - Meaning of “non-resident transaction”

Meaning of “non-resident transaction”
2 (1) A chargeable transaction is a “non-resident transaction” for the purposes of this Part of this Act if—
(a) the purchaser is, or (if there is more than one) the purchasers include, a person who is non-resident in relation to the transaction,
(b) the main subject-matter of the transaction consists of—
(i) a major interest in one or more dwellings, or
(ii) a major interest in one or more dwellings and other property,
(c) that major interest, at the beginning of the effective date of the transaction, is not a term of years absolute or leasehold estate that has 7 years or less to run, and
(d) the de minimis threshold is exceeded.
(2) A reference in sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (c) to a major interest in a dwelling includes an undivided share in a major interest in a dwelling.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(d), the de minimis threshold is exceeded if—
(a) in a case in which the chargeable consideration for the transaction does not consist of or include rent, the chargeable consideration for the transaction is £40,000 or more;
(b) in a case in which the chargeable consideration for the transaction consists of or includes rent—
(i) the chargeable consideration other than rent is £40,000 or more, or
(ii) the annual rent is £1,000 or more.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) “annual rent” in relation to a transaction, means the average annual rent over the term of the lease to which the transaction relates or, if—
(a) different amounts of rents are payable for different parts of the term, and
(b) those amounts (or any of them) are ascertainable at the effective date of the transaction,
the average annual rent over the period for which the highest ascertainable rent is payable.
(5) For provision modifying sub-paragraph (3) in its application to chargeable transactions of particular descriptions, see—
paragraph 13 (bare trust acquiring new lease);
paragraph 14 (purchases by certain settlements).
(6) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to paragraph 17 (completion of contract previously substantially performed).

Part 3 - “Non-resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction: Individuals

Whether individual “non-resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction
3 For the purposes of this Schedule, an individual is “non-resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction if the individual is not UK resident in relation to the transaction (see paragraphs 4 and 5).
Whether individual “UK resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction: basic rule
4 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, an individual is “UK resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction if the individual is present in the United Kingdom on at least 183 days during any continuous period of 365 days that falls within the relevant period.
(2) “The relevant period” means the period that—
(a) begins with the day 364 days before the effective date of the chargeable transaction, and
(b) ends with the day 365 days after the effective date of the chargeable transaction.
(3) This paragraph does not apply in relation to a chargeable transaction to which paragraph 3 applies.
(4) References in this paragraph to an individual being present in the United Kingdom on a day are to the individual being present in the United Kingdom at the end of that day.
(5) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 12 (spouses and civil partners of UK residents).
Whether individual “UK resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction: special cases
5 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, an individual is “UK resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction to which this paragraph applies if the individual is present in the United Kingdom on at least 183 days during the period that—
(a) begins with the day 364 days before the effective date of the chargeable transaction, and
(b) ends with the effective date of the chargeable transaction.
(2) This paragraph applies to a chargeable transaction if any of conditions A to C is met in relation to the transaction.
(3) Condition A is that the purchaser is, or (if there is more than one) the purchasers include—
(a) a company, or
(b) a person acting as a trustee of a unit trust scheme.
(4) Condition B is that the purchaser is, or (if there is more than one) the purchasers include, an individual who is treated as entering into the transaction by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 15 (transaction entered into for the purposes of a partnership treated as entered into by partners).
(5) Condition C is that—
(a) the purchaser is, or (if there is more than one) the purchasers include, an individual who is acting as a trustee of a settlement, and
(b) under the terms of the settlement no beneficiary is entitled—
(i) to occupy the dwelling or dwellings for life, or
(ii) to income earned in respect of the dwelling or dwellings.
(6) References in this paragraph to an individual being present in the United Kingdom on a day are to the individual being present in the United Kingdom at the end of that day.
(7) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 12 (spouses and civil partners of UK residents).
Crown employment
6 (1) For the purposes of paragraphs 4 and 5, an individual is (subject to sub-paragraph (3)) treated as present in the United Kingdom at the end of a day if at that time the individual—
(a) is in Crown employment, and
(b) is present in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of performing activities in the course of that employment.
(2) For the purposes of paragraphs 4 and 5, an individual is (subject to sub-paragraph (3)) treated as present in the United Kingdom at the end of a day if at that time the individual—
(a) is the spouse or civil partner of an individual who is treated as present in the United Kingdom at the end of that day under sub-paragraph (1), and
(b) is living with that spouse or civil partner.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) or (2) applies in relation to an individual only if a claim that it should so apply is included in a land transaction return or an amendment of such a return.
(4) “Crown employment” means employment under the Crown—
(a) which is of a public nature, and
(b) the earnings from which are payable out of the public revenue of the United Kingdom or of Northern Ireland.
(5) Section 1011 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (references to married persons, or civil partners, living together) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.

Part 4 - “Non-resident in relation to a chargeable transaction: Companies

Whether company is “non-resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction
7 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule a company is “non-resident” in relation to a chargeable transaction if either of the following conditions is met.
(2) The first condition is that, on the effective date of the chargeable transaction, the company is not UK resident for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts (see Chapter 3 of Part 2 of CTA 2009).
(3) The second condition is that, on the effective date of the chargeable transaction, the company (though UK resident for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts)—
(a) is a close company (see paragraph 8),
(b) meets the non-UK control test in relation to the transaction (see paragraphs 9 and 10), and
(c) is not an excluded company (see paragraph 11).
(4) This paragraph is subject to—
(a) paragraph 15 (co-ownership authorised contractual schemes);
(b) paragraph 16 (alternative property finance).
Meaning of “close company”
8 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a company is a “close company” if it is a close company within the meaning given by Chapter 2 of Part 10 of CTA 2010 (basic definitions), applying that Chapter subject to the following modifications.
(2) Section 444 (companies involved with close companies) applies as if condition A in that section were omitted.
(3) Section 446 (particular types of quoted company not treated as close) is treated as omitted.
Non-UK control
(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a company meets the “non-UK control test” in relation to a chargeable transaction if it is a close company within the meaning given by Chapter 2 of Part 10 of CTA 2010 (basic definitions), applying that Chapter subject to the following modifications.
(2) Section 439 (“close company”) applies as if—
(a) references to a participator were to a relevant participator, and
(b) references to five or fewer participators were to any number of relevant participators.
(3) In sub-paragraph 3, “relevant participator” means a participator (within the meaning given by Chapter 2 of Part 10 of CTA 2010) who—
(a) is non-resident in relation to the chargeable transaction (within the meaning of this Schedule), and
(b) is not a general partner in a limited partnership.
(4) Section 444 (companies involved with close companies) applies as if condition A in that section were omitted.
(5) Section 446 (particular types of quoted company not treated as close) is treated as omitted.
(6) Section 451 (attribution of rights and powers) has effect subject to the limitations set out in paragraph 10.
(7) The reference in sub-paragraph (3)(b) to a general partner does not include a general partner who possesses, or is entitled to acquire, rights that entitle the general partner, in the event of the winding up of the company or in any other circumstances, to receive more than 1% of the assets of the company which would then be available for distribution among its members.
Non-UK control: attribution of rights and powers
10 (1) This paragraph sets out limitations on the rights and powers of a person (A) that, apart from this paragraph, would be capable of being attributed to another person (B) under section 451(4) of CTA 2010, as that provision applies for the purposes of paragraph 9(1).
(2) Where A and B are partners in a partnership, no rights and powers of A may be attributed to B under paragraph (c) or (d) of section 451(4) of CTA 2010 by virtue of that fact.
(3) Where—
(a) A and B are spouses or civil partners of each other,
(b) A and B are living together, and
(c) A is UK resident in relation to the chargeable transaction,
no rights and powers of A may be attributed to B under paragraph (c) or (d) of section 451(4) of CTA 2010 by virtue of the fact mentioned in paragraph (a).
(4) Where A’s interest in a company is de minimis, no rights and powers of A in relation to the company may be attributed to B under any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 451(4) of CTA 2010.
(5) For this purpose, A’s interest in a company is “de minimis” if—
(a) the proportion of the share capital or issued share capital in the company that A possesses or is entitled to acquire is less than 5%,
(b) the proportion of the voting rights in the company that A possesses or is entitled to acquire is less than 5%,
(c) the issued share capital in the company that A possesses or is entitled to acquire would, on the assumption that the whole of the income of the company were distributed among the participators, entitle A to receive less than 5% of the income so distributed, and
(d) A’s rights in the company entitle A, in the event of the winding up of the company or in any other circumstances, to less than 5% of the assets of the company which would then be available for distribution among the participators.
(6) Any rights A has as a loan creditor are to be disregarded for the purposes of the assumption in sub-paragraph (5)(c).
(7) Section 1011 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (references to married persons, or civil partners, living together) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.
Excluded companies
11 (1) A company is an “excluded company” for the purposes of paragraph 7(3)(c) if it is any of the following—
(a) a PAIF;
(b) a body corporate that is a 51% subsidiary of PAIF;
(c) a company UK REIT;
(d) a company that is a member of a group UK REIT.
(2) In this paragraph—
(a) “PAIF” means a body corporate that is a property AIF for the purposes of Schedule 7A to this Act by virtue of paragraph 2(2) of that Schedule;
(b) “51% subsidiary” has the same meaning as in the Corporation Tax Acts (see Chapter 3 of Part 24 of CTA 2010);
(c) “company UK REIT” has the same meaning as in Part 12 of CTA 2010 (see section 524(5) of that Act);
(d) “group UK REIT” has the same meaning as in Part 12 of CTA 2010 (see section 523(5) of that Act).

Part 5 - Special rules for particular purchasers and transactions

Spouses and civil partners of UK residents
12 (1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) there are two or more purchasers in relation to a chargeable transaction who are or will be jointly entitled to the interest acquired, and
(b) the following conditions are met in relation to those purchasers.
(2) The conditions are—
(a) that, on the effective date of the transaction, the purchasers, or (if there are more than two) two of them, are spouses or civil partners of each other;
(b) that, on the effective date of the transaction, those spouses or civil partners are living together;
(c) that one of those spouses or civil partners is UK resident in relation to the chargeable transaction;
(d) that (apart from this paragraph) one of those spouses or civil partners is non-resident in relation to the chargeable transaction;
(e) that neither of the spouses or civil partners is acting as a trustee of a settlement.
(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, the spouse or civil partner mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(d) is UK resident in relation to the chargeable transaction.
(4) Section 1011 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (references to married persons, or civil partners, living together) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.
Bare trust acquiring new lease
13 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to a chargeable transaction if—
(a) the purchaser is, or (if there is more than one) the purchasers include, a person (P) who is acting as a trustee of a bare trust, and
(b) paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 16 (trustee of bare trust granted a lease treated as purchaser of the whole of the interest acquired) applies in relation to P.
(2) In determining for the purposes of this Part of this Act whether the chargeable transaction is a “non-resident transaction”, paragraph 2(1)(a) (condition that purchaser be non-resident) has effect as if a reference to the purchaser or purchasers—
(a) included the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the bare trust, and
(b) did not include P.
Purchase by settlement if beneficiary entitled to occupy, or to income from, dwelling
14 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to a chargeable transaction if—
(a) the purchaser is, or (if there is more than one) the purchasers include, a person (P) who is acting as a trustee of a settlement, and
(b) under the terms of the settlement a beneficiary is entitled—
(i) to occupy the dwelling or dwellings for life, or
(ii) to income earned in respect of the dwelling or dwellings.
(2) In determining for the purposes of this Part of this Act whether the chargeable transaction is a “non-resident transaction”, paragraph 2(1)(a) (condition that purchaser be non-resident) has effect as if a reference to the purchaser or purchasers—
(a) included the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the settlement, and
(b) did not include P.
(3) In this paragraph “settlement” does not include a settlement under a unit trust scheme.
Co-ownership authorised contractual schemes
15 (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), a co-ownership authorised contractual scheme is not “non-resident” in relation to any chargeable transaction.
(2) A collective investment scheme that is a co-ownership authorised contractual scheme by virtue of section 102A(7) (EEA schemes) is “non-resident” in relation to all chargeable transactions.
Alternative property finance
16 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to a chargeable transaction within section 71A(1)(a) (purchase of land by financial institution as part of alternative property finance arrangements).
(2) The financial institution that enters into the transaction is “non-resident” in relation to the transaction if and only if the person with whom it enters into the arrangements mentioned in section 71A(1) is non-resident in relation to the transaction.
(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies in relation to a chargeable transaction within section 73(1)(a)(i) (purchase of land by financial institution as part of alternative property finance arrangements).
(4) The financial institution that enters into the transaction is “non-resident” in relation to the transaction if and only if the person with whom it enters into the arrangements mentioned in section 73(1) is non-resident in relation to the transaction.
Completion of contract previously substantially performed
17 In a case within section 44(8) (contract substantially performed and subsequently completed by a conveyance) the later of the notifiable transactions mentioned in that provision is a “non-resident transaction”  for the purposes of this Part if and only if the earlier of those notifiable transactions is a non-resident transaction for the purposes of this Part.

Part 6 - Supplementary provision

Completion of land transaction return
18 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to a land transaction return in respect of a chargeable transaction if—
(a) in order to determine whether the chargeable transaction is a non-resident transaction, it is necessary to determine whether one or more individuals are UK resident in relation to the transaction under paragraph 4(1), and
(b) that individual or any of those individuals, at the beginning of the day on which the land transaction return is delivered, has not yet met the condition in that provision (but might turn out to do so depending on their residence during the remainder of the relevant period).
(2) The land transaction return must be prepared on the assumption that the individual or (as the case may be) each of the individuals is resident outside the United Kingdom throughout the period—
(a) beginning with the day on which the land transaction return is delivered, and
(b) ending at the end of the relevant period.
(3) In this paragraph “the relevant period” has the same meaning as in paragraph 4(1).
Amendment of return where individual becomes UK resident after return delivered
19 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where—
(a) a land transaction return in respect of a chargeable transaction is prepared on the assumption mentioned in paragraph 18(2), and
(b) the individual or (as the case may be) each of the individuals in respect of whom the assumption was made subsequently meets the condition in paragraph 4(1) (with the result that the transaction is not a non-resident transaction).
(2) The land transaction return may be amended, at any time before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day after the effective date of the transaction, to take account of the fact that the transaction is not a non-resident transaction.
(3) Where a land transaction return is amended under sub-paragraph (2), paragraph 6(2A) of Schedule 10 (notice of amendment of return to be accompanied by the contract for the transaction etc) does not apply in relation to the amendment.
What counts as a dwelling
20 (1) This paragraph sets out rules for determining what counts as a dwelling for the purposes of this Schedule.
(2) A building or part of a building counts as a dwelling if—
(a) it is used or suitable for use as a single dwelling, or
(b) it is in the process of being constructed or adapted for such use.
(3) Land that is, or is to be, occupied or enjoyed with a dwelling as a garden or grounds (including any building or structure on that land) is taken to be part of that dwelling.
(4) Land that subsists, or is to subsist, for the benefit of a dwelling is taken to be part of that dwelling.
(5) The main subject-matter of a transaction is also taken to consist of or include an interest in a dwelling if—
(a) substantial performance of a contract constitutes the effective date of that transaction by virtue of a relevant deeming provision,
(b) the main subject-matter of the transaction consists of or includes an interest in a building, or a part of a building, that is to be constructed or adapted under the contract for use as a single dwelling, and
(c) construction or adaptation of the building, or part of a building, has not begun by the time the contract is substantially performed.
(6) In sub-paragraph (5)—
“contract” includes any agreement;
“relevant deeming provision” means any of sections 44 to 45A or paragraph 5(1) or (2) of Schedule 2A or paragraph 12A of Schedule 17A;
“substantially performed” has the same meaning as in section 44.
(7) A building or part of a building used for a purpose specified in section 116(2) or (3) is not used as a dwelling for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) or (5).
(8) Where a building or part of a building is used for a purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (7), no account is to be taken for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of its suitability for any other use.
Interpretation
21 In this Schedule—
“CTA 2009” means the Corporation Tax Act 2009;
“CTA 2010” means the Corporation Tax Act 2010.
Power to modify this Schedule
22 (1) The Treasury may by regulations amend or otherwise modify this Schedule for the purpose of preventing certain chargeable transactions from being non-resident transactions for the purposes of this Schedule.
(2) The provision which may be included in regulations under this paragraph by reason of section 114(6)(c) includes incidental or consequential provision which may cause a chargeable transaction to be a non-resident transaction for the purposes of this Schedule.”
(6) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to any land transaction of which the effective date is, or is after, the commencement date.
(7) But those amendments do not have effect in relation to—
(a) a transaction effected in pursuance of a contract entered into and substantially performed before the commencement date, or
(b) a transaction that—
(i) is entered into pursuant to a contract entered into before 11 March 2020, and
(ii) is not excluded for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.
(8) A transaction is excluded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (7) if—
(a) there is any variation of the contract, or assignment of rights under the contract, on or after 11 March 2020,
(b) the transaction is effected in consequence of the exercise on or after that date of any option, right of pre-emption or similar right, or
(c) on or after that date there is an assignment, sub-sale or other transaction relating to the whole or part of the subject-matter of the contract as a result of which a person other than the purchaser under the contract becomes entitled to call for a conveyance.
(9) In paragraphs (6) and (7) “the commencement date” means 1 April 2021.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

44. Stamp duty land tax (housing co-operatives etc)

Resolved,
That—
(1) In Schedule 4A to the Finance Act 2003 (higher rate of SDLT for certain transactions), after paragraph 5F insert—
“Qualifying housing co-operatives
5FA Paragraph 3 does not apply to a chargeable transaction so far as its subject-matter consists of a higher threshold interest that is acquired by a company on a day on which the company is a qualifying housing co-operative for the purposes of section 150(3A) of the Finance Act 2013 (relief from ATED).”
(2) In that Schedule, after paragraph 5K insert—
“5L (1) This paragraph applies where relief under paragraph 5FA (qualifying housing co-operatives) has been allowed in respect of a higher threshold interest forming the whole or part of the subject-matter of a chargeable transaction.
(2) References in this paragraph to a qualifying housing body are to—
(a) a company that is a qualifying housing co-operative for the purposes of section 150(3A) of the Finance Act 2013 (relief from ATED),
(b) a registered provider of social housing, or
(c) a registered social landlord.
(3) The relief under paragraph 5FA is withdrawn (subject to sub-paragraph (4)) if—
(a) on any day in the period of three years beginning with the effective date of the chargeable transaction (“the control period”), the purchaser is not a qualifying housing body, and
(b) immediately before the first day on which that is the case the purchaser still holds the higher threshold interest or holds a chargeable interest derived from it.
(4) If, on any day in the control period, the purchaser is not a qualifying housing body because it ceases to exist (whether by virtue of a conversion into, or amalgamation with, another person or for any other reason), relief is not to be withdrawn under this paragraph unless—
(a) another person (“the first successor”) has succeeded to the engagements of the purchaser, and
(b) condition A or condition B is met (and if condition B is met, subject to sub-paragraph (7)).
(5) Condition A is that, on the day the first successor succeeds to the engagements of the purchaser (“the day of succession”), the first successor is not a qualifying housing body.
(6) Condition B is that—
(a) on any day in the part of the control period that falls after the day of succession, the first successor is not a qualifying housing body, and
(b) immediately before the first day on which that is the case the first successor still holds the higher threshold interest or holds a chargeable interest derived from it.
(7) If condition B is met because the first successor ceases to exist (whether by virtue of a conversion into, or amalgamation with, another person or for any other reason), relief is not to be withdrawn under this paragraph unless it would have been withdrawn by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) if references in sub-paragraphs (4) to (6)—
(a) to the purchaser were references to the first successor, and
(b) to the first successor were references to the person who has succeeded to the engagements of the first successor (“the second successor”).
(8) Sub-paragraph (7) is to apply to the second successor as it applies to the first successor, and so on, subject to the necessary modifications.”
(3) Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 (stamp duty land tax) is further amended in accordance with paragraphs (4) to (10).
(4) In section 81 (further return where relief withdrawn)—
(a) for subsection (1A) substitute—
“(1A) Where relief is withdrawn to any extent under—
(a) any of paragraphs 5G to 5L of Schedule 4A (relief from higher rate under Schedule 4A (higher rate for certain transactions)),
(b) paragraph 6 of Schedule 7A (PAIF seeding relief), or
(c) paragraph 14 or 16 of Schedule 7A (COACS seeding relief),
the purchaser must deliver a further return before the end of the period of 30 days after the relevant date.”;
(b) in subsection (1B), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) in the case of relief under paragraph 5FA of that Schedule (qualifying housing co-operatives), the date determined in accordance with subsection (1C);”;
(c) after subsection (1B) insert—
“(1C) For the purposes of subsection (1B)(ea) (relief under paragraph 5FA of Schedule 4A withdrawn because the conditions in paragraph 5L(3) of that Schedule are met), the date is—
(a) where paragraph 5L(4) of Schedule 4A does not apply, the first day in the period mentioned in paragraph 5L(3)(a) of that Schedule on which the purchaser is not a qualifying housing body;
(b) where paragraph 5L(4) or (7) of that Schedule applies and relief is withdrawn because condition A in paragraph 5L(5) of that Schedule is met, the day of succession of the relevant successor;
(c) where paragraph 5L(4) or (7) of that Schedule applies and relief is withdrawn because condition B in paragraph 5L(6) of that Schedule is met, the first day in the part of the control period that falls after the day of succession of the relevant successor on which the relevant successor is not a qualifying housing body.
(1D) Where relief is withdrawn to any extent under paragraph 5L of Schedule 4A in a case to which paragraph 5L(4) or (7) applies, the reference in subsection (1A) to the purchaser is to be read as a reference to the relevant successor.”;
(d) for subsection (3) substitute—
“(3) The provisions of Schedule 10 (returns, assessments and other matters) apply for the purposes of this section with the following modifications—
(a) references to a return under section 76 (general requirement to deliver land transaction return) are to be read as references to a return under subsection (1) or (1A);
(b) references to the transaction to which a return relates are to be read as references to the withdrawal of relief in respect of which the return is required under subsection (1) or (1A);
(c) references to a chargeable transaction to which (as yet) no return relates are to be read as references to the withdrawal of relief under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A);
(d) references to the effective date of a transaction—
(i) in relation to the withdrawal of relief under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1), are to be read as references to the date on which the disqualifying event occurs, and
(ii) in relation to the withdrawal of relief under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1A), are to be read as references to the relevant date (see subsections (1B) and (1C));
(e) where, by virtue of subsection (1D), a return is to be made by the relevant successor, references to the purchaser are to be read as references to the relevant successor;
(f) paragraph 36(5A) is to be read as if it also permitted an appeal under paragraph 35(1)(e) on the ground that no further return is required.”;
(e) omit subsection (5);
(f) at the end insert—
“(6) In subsections (1C), (1D) and (3)(e) (which relate to the withdrawal of relief under paragraph 5L of Schedule 4A) “the relevant successor” means the person who is the most recent successor in the chain of succession at the time relief is withdrawn (and that person could be the first successor, the second successor or a subsequent successor).
(7) Terms used in subsections (1C) and (6) which are defined for the purposes of paragraph 5L of Schedule 4A have the same meaning in those subsections as they have in that paragraph.”
(5) In section 81ZA (alternative finance arrangements: return where relief withdrawn)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “or 6H” substitute “, 6H or 6I”;
(b) for subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) The provisions of Schedule 10 (returns, assessments and other matters) apply for the purposes of this section with the following modifications—
(a) references to a return under section 76 (general requirement to deliver land transaction return) are to be read as references to a return under subsection (1);
(b) references to the transaction to which a return relates are to be read as references to the withdrawal of relief in respect of which the return is required under subsection (1);
(c) references to a chargeable transaction to which (as yet) no return relates are to be read as references to the withdrawal of relief under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1);
(d) references to the effective date of a transaction are to be read as references to the date of the disqualifying event;
(e) references to the purchaser are to be read as references to the relevant person so far as that is necessary as a result of subsection (1) of this section or section 85(3) (payment of additional tax by relevant person where relief withdrawn);
(f) paragraph 36(5A) is to be read as if it also permitted an appeal under paragraph 35(1)(e) on the ground that no further return is required.”;
(c) in subsection (3), for the words from “the first day” to the end substitute “—
(a) where the relief was given under paragraph 5, 5B, 5C, 5D or 5F of Schedule 4A, the first day in the control period on which a relevant requirement was not met;
(b) where the relief was given under paragraph 5FA of Schedule 4A, the date determined in accordance with subsection (5A).”;
(d) in subsections (4) and (5), for “subsection (3)” substitute “subsection (3)(a)”;
(e) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b) (relief withdrawn because the conditions in paragraph 6I(2) of Schedule 4A are met), the date is—
(a) where paragraph 6I(3) of Schedule 4A does not apply, the first day in the period mentioned in paragraph 6I(2)(a) of that Schedule on which the relevant person is not a qualifying housing body;
(b) where paragraph 6I(3) or (6) of that Schedule applies and relief is withdrawn because condition A in paragraph 6I(4) of that Schedule is met, the day of succession of the relevant successor;
(c) where paragraph 6I(3) or (6) of that Schedule applies and relief is withdrawn because condition B in paragraph 6I(5) of that Schedule is met, the first day in the part of the control period that falls after the day of succession of the relevant successor on which the relevant successor is not a qualifying housing body.”;
(f) in subsection (6), for the definition of “the relevant person” substitute—
““the relevant person” means—
(a) the person (other than the financial institution) who entered into the arrangements in question, or
(b) where relief is withdrawn to any extent under paragraph 6I of Schedule 4A in a case to which paragraph 6I(3) or (6) applies, the relevant successor;
“the relevant successor” means the person who is the most recent successor in the chain of succession at the time relief is withdrawn (and that person could be the first successor, the second successor or a subsequent successor).”;
(g) after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) Terms used in subsection (5A), and in the definition of “the relevant successor” in subsection (6), which are defined for the purposes of paragraph 6I of Schedule 4A have the same meaning in those provisions as they have in that paragraph.”
(6) In section 85 (liability for tax)—
(a) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where relief is withdrawn to any extent under paragraph 5L of Schedule 4A (qualifying housing co-operatives) in a case to which paragraph 5L(4) or (7) applies—
(a) subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the additional tax payable as a result of the withdrawal of the relief, and
(b) the relevant successor is liable to pay that additional tax.
(2B) In subsection (2A) “the relevant successor” has the same meaning as it has in subsections (1C), (1D) and (3)(e) of section 81 (see subsections (6) and (7) of that section).”;
(b) in subsection (3), for “and 6H” substitute “, 6H and 6I”;
(c) in subsection (4), for the words from “means” to the end substitute “has the same meaning as in section 81ZA (see subsections (6) and (7) of that section)”.
(7) In section 86 (payment of tax)—
(a) in subsection (2)(za), for “5K” substitute “5L”;
(b) in subsection (2A), for “and 6H” substitute “, 6H and 6I”.
(8) In section 87(3) (interest on unpaid tax)—
(a) in paragraph (za), for “5K” substitute “5L”;
(b) after paragraph (za) insert—
“(zb) in the case of an amount payable because relief is withdrawn under any of paragraphs 6D, 6F, 6G, 6H and 6I of Schedule 4A, the date which is the date of the disqualifying event for the purposes of section 81ZA (see subsection (3) of that section);”.
(9) In Schedule 4A (stamp duty land tax: higher rate for certain transactions)—
(a) in paragraph 2(6)(a)—
(i) for “5K” substitute “5L”;
(ii) for “6H” substitute “6I”;
(b) in paragraph 6A—
(i) in sub-paragraph (4), for “and 5F(1)” substitute “, 5F(1) and 5FA”;
(ii) in sub-paragraph (5), for “or 5F(1)” substitute “, 5F(1) or 5FA”;
(c) in paragraph 6C(2)(b), for “and 5F(1)” substitute “, 5F(1) and 5FA”;
(d) after paragraph 6H insert—
“61 (1) This paragraph applies where relief under paragraph 5FA (qualifying housing co-operatives) has been allowed, in accordance with paragraph 6A(4), in relation to the purchase of a major interest in land.
(2) The relief is withdrawn (subject to sub-paragraph (3)) if—
(a) on any day in the period of three years beginning with the effective date of the first transaction (“the control period”), the relevant person is not a qualifying housing body, and
(b) immediately before the first day on which that is the case the relevant person holds a relevant interest (whether jointly, or in common, or otherwise).
(3) If, on any day in the control period, the relevant person is not a qualifying housing body because it ceases to exist (whether by virtue of a conversion into, or amalgamation with, another person or for any other reason), relief is not to be withdrawn under this paragraph unless—
(a) another person (“the first successor”) has succeeded to the engagements of the relevant person, and
(b) condition A or condition B is met (and if condition B is met, subject to sub-paragraph (6)).
(4) Condition A is that, on the day the first successor succeeds to the engagements of the relevant person (“the day of succession”), the first successor is not a qualifying housing body.
(5) Condition B is that—
(a) on any day in the part of the control period that falls after the day of succession, the first successor is not a qualifying housing body, and
(b) immediately before the first day on which that is the case the first successor still holds a relevant interest (whether jointly, or in common, or otherwise).
(6) If condition B is met because the first successor ceases to exist (whether by virtue of a conversion into, or amalgamation with, another person or for any other reason), relief is not to be withdrawn under this paragraph unless it would have been withdrawn by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) if references in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5)—
(a) to the relevant person were references to the first successor, and
(b) to the first successor were references to the person who has succeeded to the engagements of the first successor (“the second successor”).
(7) Sub-paragraph (6) is to apply to the second successor as it applies to the first successor, and so on, subject to the necessary modifications.
(8) In this paragraph—
(a) “qualifying housing body” means—
(i) a company that is a qualifying housing co-operative for the purposes of section 150(3A) of the Finance Act 2013 (relief from ATED),
(ii) a registered provider of social housing, or
(iii) a registered social landlord;
(b) “relevant interest” has the same meaning as in paragraph 6D;
(c) “the relevant person” means the person (other than the financial institution) who enters into the arrangements mentioned in section 71A(1) or 73(1);
(d) references to a major interest include an undivided share in a major interest in land.”;
(e) in paragraph 9, in the definition of “financial institution”, for “6H” substitute “6I”.
(10) In Schedule 10 (returns, assessments and other matters), in paragraph 12(2A) (notice of enquiry)—
(a) in paragraph (b), omit “in respect of the same land transaction”;
(b) in the words after paragraph (b), for “land transaction” substitute “return”.
(11) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to any land transaction of which the effective date is 3 March 2021 or a later date.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

45. Annual tax on enveloped dwellings (housing co-operatives)

Resolved,
That—
(1) In section 150 of the Finance Act 2013 (providers of social housing)—
(a) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) A day in a chargeable period is relievable in relation to a single-dwelling interest if on that day a qualifying housing co-operative (as defined by section 150A) is entitled to the interest.”, and
(b) in the heading, at the end insert “etc”.
(2) After that section insert—
“150AMeaning of “qualifying housing co-operative”
(1) A company is a “qualifying housing co-operative” for the purposes of section 150(3A) on any day if on that day—
(a) it is a housing association within the meaning of—
(i) the Housing Associations Act 1985, or
(ii) Part 2 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992,
(b) it is a registered society within the meaning of—
(i) the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, or
(ii) the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, and
(c) the rules of the association comply with subsection (2).
(2) The rules of the association—
(a) must restrict membership to persons who are tenants, or prospective tenants, of the association,
(b) must preclude the granting or assignment of tenancies to persons other than members,
(c) must prevent members from transferring any of their shares,
(d) must prevent members from receiving any more than the nominal value of their shares on a return of share capital, and
(e) must confer on members equal voting rights.”
(3) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to—
(a) the chargeable period beginning with 1 April 2021 and all subsequent chargeable periods;
(b) the chargeable period beginning with 1 April 2020 but only in relation to a person and a single-dwelling interest falling within case A or case B.
(4) Case A is that the first day in the chargeable period on which the person is within the charge with respect to the single-dwelling interest is on or after 3 March 2021.
(5) Case B is that the person was within the charge with respect to the single-dwelling interest on one or more days in the chargeable period before 3 March 2021 but has not delivered an annual tax on enveloped dwellings return for the period with respect to the interest by 3 March 2021.
(6) For the purposes of paragraphs (3) to (5), “single-dwelling interest”, “within the charge” and “annual tax on enveloped dwellings return” have the same meanings that they have for the purposes of Part 3 of the Finance Act 2013.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

46. Annual tax on enveloped dwellings (repayment claim)

Resolved,
That—
(1) A claim for repayment of annual tax on enveloped dwellings paid, before 3 March 2021, by or on behalf of a chargeable person with respect to a single-dwelling interest may be made by the person for each day (if any) in the chargeable period beginning with 1 April 2020 on which—
(a) the person was within the charge with respect to the interest and not treated as being outside the charge by virtue of section 132(2) of the Finance Act 2013 (effect of reliefs under sections 133 to 150), and
(b) a qualifying housing co-operative was entitled to the interest.
(2) For the purposes of a claim under this Resolution with respect to a single-dwelling interest—
(a) a company is a qualifying housing co-operative on any day if on that day it would have been a qualifying housing co-operative for the purposes of section 150(3A) of the Finance Act 2013 (if sections 150(3A) and 150A of the Finance Act 2013 (as inserted by the preceding Resolution) had been in force on that day);
(b) each day on which the conditions in paragraph (1)(a) and (b) are met with respect to the interest is a “relievable day”;
(c) references to “the relevant return” are to the annual tax on enveloped dwellings return for the chargeable period beginning with 1 April 2020 with respect to the interest.
(3) Where a claim is made under this Resolution with respect to a single-dwelling interest, HMRC must repay the total of the daily amounts for all the relievable days.
(4) A claim under this Resolution must be made by amending the relevant return under paragraph 3 of Schedule 33 to the Finance Act 2013 on the same basis as it would have been amended if, on each of the relievable days, the chargeable person had been entitled to claim the type of relief numbered 8 in the table in section 159A(9) of that Act.
(5) Terms used in this Resolution and in Part 3 of the Finance Act 2013 have the same meaning in this Resolution as in that Part.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

47. Value added tax (temporary 5% rate for hospitality and tourism)

Resolved,
That in Articles 2 and 5 of the Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) (Hospitality and Tourism) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/728), for “31st March 2021” substitute “30th September 2021”.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

48. Value added tax (temporary 12.5% rate for hospitality and tourism)

Resolved,
That provision may be made for a temporary 12.5% rate of value added tax on supplies within Groups 14 to 16 in Schedule 7A to the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

49. Value added tax (extending digital record-keeping to all businesses)

Resolved,
That provision may be made repealing paragraph 6(7) to (9) of Schedule 11 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

50. Value added tax (deferring payment by reason of the coronavirus emergency)

Resolved,
That—
(1) In this Resolution—
“the Commissioners” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;
“HMRC” means Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;
“relevant VAT sum” means a sum to meet all or part of a liability described in article 5 of the Finance Act 2008, Section 135 (Coronavirus) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/934).
(2) The Commissioners (having agreed that payment of relevant VAT sums may be deferred until 31 March 2021) may—
(a) agree that payment of a relevant VAT sum may be further deferred, and
(b) make such arrangements as they consider appropriate for persons to pay relevant VAT sums.
(3) The period for which payment is further deferred under paragraph (2) may be different for different cases.
(4) Arrangements made under paragraph (2) may, among other things—
(a) require that, in order to participate in the arrangements, a person must meet specified conditions,
(b) require or enable a sum to be paid in instalments, including instalments of different amounts, and
(c) make different provision for different cases.
(5) Nothing in paragraphs (2) to (4) affects the powers otherwise available to the Commissioners in connection with the collection and management of relevant VAT sums or other sums.
(6) No liability to a surcharge on a relevant VAT sum arises under section 59 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (the default surcharge).
(7) A person who is liable to pay a relevant VAT sum is liable to a penalty if the person—
(a) fails to pay the sum on or before 30 June 2021, and
(b) fails to enter into payment arrangements in respect of the sum on or before that day.
(8) In paragraph (7), “payment arrangements” means arrangements with HMRC (whether general or individually tailored) under which the sum is to be paid and includes arrangements entered into before this Resolution comes into force.
(9) A person is not liable to a penalty under this Resolution in respect of a relevant VAT sum if the person satisfies HMRC or, on appeal, a tribunal that there is a reasonable excuse for the failures described in paragraph (7)(a) and (b).
(10) In paragraph (9), “tribunal” has the same meaning as in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (see section 82 of that Act).
(11) The amount of the penalty under this Resolution is 5% of so much of the relevant VAT sum as has not been paid immediately before the day on which the amount due by way of penalty is assessed under paragraph (12).
(12) Where a person is liable to a penalty under this Resolution, HMRC may assess the amount due by way of penalty and notify it to the person (subject to paragraph (15)).
(13) If it appears to HMRC that the amount that ought to have been assessed in an assessment under paragraph (12) exceeds the amount that was assessed, HMRC may make a supplementary assessment of the amount of the excess and notify it to the person (subject to paragraph (15)).
(14) If it appears to HMRC that the amount that was assessed in an assessment under paragraph (12) exceeds the amount that ought to have been assessed, HMRC may, by notice to the person, amend the assessment so as to reduce the amount due.
(15) An assessment under paragraph (12) or (13) may not be made after the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the time when facts sufficient in the opinion of HMRC to indicate that the person had failed as described in paragraph 7(1)(a) and (b) came to HMRC’s knowledge.
(16) An amendment under paragraph (14) may be made after the last day on which the assessment in question could have been made.
(17) A penalty under this Resolution must be paid before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which notification of the assessment of the penalty under paragraph (12) is issued.
(18) Where HMRC make a supplementary assessment under paragraph (13), the additional amount must be paid before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which they issue the notification of that assessment.
(19) Where HMRC amend an assessment under paragraph (14) that does not affect when the penalty must be paid.
(20) If an amount is assessed and notified to a person under this Resolution then unless, or except to the extent that, the assessment is withdrawn or reduced, the amount is recoverable as if it were VAT due from the person.
(21) In paragraph (20), “VAT” has the same meaning as in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (see section 96 of that Act).
(22) Part 5 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (reviews and appeals) has effect in relation to—
(a) any liability to a penalty under this Resolution, and
(b) the amount of a penalty under this Resolution,
as if those matters were listed in section 83(1) of that Act.
(23) Section 84(3), (3B) and (3C) of that Act (requirement to deposit sum payable with HMRC) have effect in relation to appeals against decisions with respect to those matters.
(24) A person is not liable to a penalty under this Resolution in respect of a failure in respect of which the person has been convicted of an offence.
(25) Section 98 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (service of notices) applies to notices and notifications to be given under this Resolution as it applies to notices and notifications to be given under that Act.
(26) For the purposes of this Resolution, a notice or notification given to a personal representative, trustee in bankruptcy, trustee in sequestration, receiver, liquidator or other representative of a person is to be treated as having been given to that person.
(27) In paragraph (26), “trustee in sequestration” has the same meaning as in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (see section 96 of that Act).
(28) This Resolution comes into force on 9 March 2021.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

51. Value added tax (refunds to S4C)

Resolved,
That provision may be made about refunds of value added tax to S4C.

52. Customs duty (removal of steel to Northern Ireland)

Resolved,
That—
(1) The Customs (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2000/1605) are amended as follows.
Duty on certain steel products imported on or after 3 March 2021
(2) After regulation 7 insert—
“7A Amount of section 30A(3) duty for certain steel products
(1) This regulation applies to goods if—
(a) they are imported into the United Kingdom as a result of their entry into Northern Ireland,
(b) they are not relevant goods,
(c) they are not Union goods,
(d) the origin of the goods (as determined in accordance with the provisions of Union customs legislation in force relating to non-preferential origin) is neither in the United Kingdom nor in the European Union,
(e) they are declared, in accordance with Union customs legislation, for a procedure corresponding to the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure,
(f) they would (ignoring this regulation) have been subject to the EU steel safeguarding measure, and
(g) if they had instead been imported into a member State they would have benefitted from tariff-rate quota in relation to that measure.
(2) For the purpose of determining the amount of duty charged under section 30A(3) of the Act in respect of goods to which this regulation applies—
(a) the EU steel regulation does not apply, and
(b) the steel safeguards notice applies as if references to import duty were to duty charged under section 30A(3)”
(3) In regulation 8 (determination of section 30A charge), after “7” insert “, 7A”.
(4) In regulation 9 (relief from section 30A duty), in sub-paragraph (c)—
(a) for “regulation” substitute “regulations”;
(b) after “7” insert “and 7A”.
(5) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) to (4)—
(c) have effect in relation to goods declared on or after 3 March 2021, in accordance with Union customs legislation, for a procedure corresponding to the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure, and
(d) have effect as if made under section 30B of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (and may be amended or revoked accordingly)
Duty on certain steel products imported before 3 March 2021
(6) Before regulation 8 insert—
“7B Amount of section 30A(3) duty for certain steel products before 3 March 2021
(1) This regulation applies to goods if—
(a) they are imported into the United Kingdom as a result of their entry into Northern Ireland,
(b) they are declared before 3 March 2021, in accordance with Union customs legislation, for a procedure corresponding to the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure,
(c) they are not relevant goods,
(d) they are not Union goods,
(e) the origin of the goods (as determined in accordance with the provisions of Union customs legislation in force relating to non-preferential origin) is neither in the United Kingdom nor in the European Union,
(f) they would (ignoring this regulation) have been subject to an EU steel safeguarding measure,
(g) if they had instead been imported into a member State they would have benefitted from tariff-rate quota in relation to that measure, and
(h) they would not have been subject to a domestic steel safeguarding measure (whether they would have benefited from a quota or were otherwise not subject to the measure) if—
(i) the goods had been declared for the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure in Great Britain, and
(ii) that declaration had been accepted at the same time as the actual declaration was accepted.
(2) Where the person declaring the goods makes a relevant claim that is accepted by HMRC, the EU steel regulation does not apply for the purpose of determining the amount of duty charged under section 30A(3) of the Act in respect of the goods.
(3) In this regulation “relevant claim” means a claim made in accordance with the procedure set out in the steel notice provided all conditions in that notice are complied with.”
(7) In regulation 8 (determination of section 30A charge), before “and 9” insert “, 7B”.
(8) The amendments made by paragraphs (6) and (7)—
(a) have effect in relation to goods declared on or after IP completion day, in accordance with Union customs legislation, for a procedure corresponding to the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure, and
(b) have effect as if made under section 30B of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (and may be amended or revoked accordingly)
Duty on certain steel products removed to Northern Ireland on or after 3 March 2021
(9) After regulation 13 insert—
“13A Amount of section 40A(1) duty for certain steel products
(1) This regulation applies to goods if—
(a) they are removed to Northern Ireland from Great Britain,
(b) they are declared, in accordance with Union customs legislation, for a procedure corresponding to the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure,
(c) they are not relevant goods,
(d) they are not Union goods,
(e) they are not domestic goods,
(f) they are not goods to which regulation 11 applies,
(g) the origin of the goods (as determined in accordance with the provisions of Union customs legislation in force relating to non-preferential origin) is neither in the United Kingdom nor in the European Union,
(h) they would (ignoring this regulation) have been subject to an EU steel safeguarding measure, and
(i) if they had instead been imported into a member State they would have benefitted from tariff-rate quota in relation to that measure.
(2) For the purpose of determining the amount of duty charged under section 40A(1) of the Act in respect of goods to which this regulation applies—
(a) the EU steel regulation does not apply, and
(b) the steel safeguards notice applies as if references to import duty were to duty charged under section 40A(1)”
(10) In regulation 14 (determination of section 40A charge), after “13” insert “13A,”.
(11) In regulation 16 (relief from section 40A duty), in paragraph (1)(c)—
(a) for “regulation” substitute “regulations”;
(b) after “13” insert “and 13A”.
(12) The amendments made by paragraphs (9) to (11)—
(a) have effect in relation to goods declared on or after 3 March 2021, in accordance with Union customs legislation, for a procedure corresponding to the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure, and
(b) have effect as if made under section 40B of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (and may be amended or revoked accordingly)
Duty on certain steel products removed to Northern Ireland after IP completion day
(13) Before regulation 14 insert—
“13B Amount of section 40A(1) duty for certain domestic steel products
(1) This regulation applies to goods if—
(a) they are removed to Northern Ireland from Great Britain,
(b) they are declared, in accordance with Union customs legislation, for a procedure corresponding to the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure,
(c) they are domestic goods,
(d) they are not relevant goods,
(e) they are not Union goods,
(f) they are not goods to which regulation 11 applies,
(g) the origin of the goods (as determined in accordance with the provisions of Union customs legislation in force relating to non-preferential origin) is neither in the United Kingdom nor in the European Union,
(h) they would (ignoring this regulation) have been subject to an EU steel safeguarding measure, and
(i) if they had instead been imported into a member State they would have benefitted from tariff-rate quota in relation to that measure.
(2) Where the person declaring the goods makes a relevant claim that is accepted by HMRC, the EU steel regulation does not apply for the purpose of determining the amount of duty charged under section 40A(1) of the Act in respect of the goods.
(3) In this regulation “relevant claim” means a claim—
(a) made in accordance with a procedure specified in a notice given by HMRC Commissioners, or
(b) if no such notice is in force, made in accordance with the procedure set out in the steel notice provided all conditions in that notice are complied with.
(4) HMRC Commissioners may by notice provide that a person who makes a relevant claim of the type mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) must notify the Secretary of State of the making of the claim.
(5) The notice may provide—
(a) that specified information must be included in the notification to the Secretary of State;
(b) for the form and manner in which such a notification must be given;
(c) that such a notification must be given within such period as is specified in the notice.
(6) A notice under paragraph (3)(a) or (4)—
(a) must be published;
(b) may be withdrawn;
(c) may be amended from time to time.
13C Amount of section 40A(1) duty for certain steel products before 3 March 2021
(1) This regulation applies to goods if—
(a) they are removed to Northern Ireland from Great Britain,
(b) they are declared before 3 March 2021, in accordance with Union customs legislation, for a procedure corresponding to the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure,
(c) they are not domestic goods,
(d) they are not relevant goods,
(e) they are not Union goods,
(f) they are not goods to which regulation 11 applies,
(g) the origin of the goods (as determined in accordance with the provisions of Union customs legislation in force relating to non-preferential origin) is neither in the United Kingdom nor in the European Union,
(h) they would (ignoring this regulation) have been subject to an EU steel safeguarding measure,
(i) if they had instead been imported into a member State they would have benefitted from tariff-rate quota in relation to that measure, and
(j) they would not have been subject to a domestic steel safeguarding measure (whether they would have benefited from a quota or were otherwise not subject to the measure) if—
(i) the goods had been declared for the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure in Great Britain, and
(ii) that declaration had been accepted at the same time as the actual declaration was accepted.
(2) Where the person declaring the goods makes a relevant claim that is accepted by HMRC, the EU steel regulation does not apply for the purpose of determining the amount of duty charged under section 40A(1) of the Act in respect of the goods.
(3) In this regulation “relevant claim” means a claim made in accordance with the procedure set out in the steel notice provided all conditions in that notice are complied with.”
(14) In regulation 14 (determination of section 40A charge), before “15” insert “13B,13C,”.
(15) The amendments made by paragraphs (13) and (14)—
(a) have effect in relation to goods declared on or after IP completion day, in accordance with Union customs legislation, for a procedure corresponding to the free-circulation procedure or the authorised use procedure, and
(b) have effect as if made under section 40B of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (and may be amended or revoked accordingly)
Interpretation
(16) In regulation 3 (interpretation of Part 2), at the appropriate places insert—
““domestic steel safeguarding measure” means an additional rate of duty payable as a result of the steel safeguards notice (and goods are subject to that measure if that additional rate is payable in respect of the goods);”;
““EU steel safeguarding measure” means an additional rate of duty payable as a result of Article 1 of the EU steel regulation (and goods are subject to that measure if that additional rate is payable in respect of the goods);”;
““EU steel regulation” means Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 as it may be amended, or replaced, from time to time;”;
““steel notice” means the notice on movements of steel into Northern Ireland published by HMRC on 3 March 2021;”;
““steel safeguards notice” means Taxation Notice 2020/06: safeguard measures on certain steel products – application of tariff rate quotas published on 30 September 2020 by the Secretary of State, as that notice may be amended, or replaced, from time to time;”.
(17) The amendments made by paragraph (16)—
(a) are treated as having come into force on IP completion day, and
(b) have effect as if made under sections 30B and 40B of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (and may be amended or revoked accordingly)
Power to extend application of the regulations to other goods
(18) Paragraph (19) applies to a power conferred by the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 where provision inserted by this Resolution—
(a) relates to particular goods, and
(b) is to have effect as if made under that power.
(19) A power to which this paragraph applies may (amongst other things) be exercised to make similar provision relating to other goods, including provision having retrospective effect provided any such retrospective provision does not impose or increase taxation.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

53. Hydrocarbon oil duties (restriction of use of rebated diesel and biofuels)

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision taking effect in a future year may be made amending the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 to restrict the use of rebated diesel and biofuels to specified categories of machine.

54. Rates of tobacco products duty

Resolved,
That provision may be made substituting the Table in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979.

55. Vehicle excise duty (rates)

Resolved,
That—
(1) Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (annual rates of vehicle excise duty) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1 (general rate)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2) (vehicle not covered elsewhere in Schedule with engine cylinder capacity exceeding 1,549cc), for “£270” substitute “£280”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (2A) (vehicle not covered elsewhere in Schedule with engine cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,549cc), for “£165” substitute “£170”.
(3) In paragraph 1B (graduated rates for light passenger vehicles registered before 1 April 2017), for the Table substitute—

  

  100
  110
  10
  20


  110
  120
  20
  30


  120
  130
  120
  130


  130
  140
  145
  155


  140
  150
  160
  170


  150
  165
  200
  210


  165
  175
  240
  250


  175
  185
  265
  275


  185
  200
  305
  315


  200
  225
  330
  340


  225
  255
  575
  585


  255
  —
  590
  600”.

  

(4) In the sentence immediately following the Table in that paragraph, for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
“(a) in column (3), in the last two rows, “330” were substituted for “575” and “590”, and
(b) in column (4), in the last two rows, “340” were substituted for “585” and “600”.”
(5) In paragraph 1GC (graduated rates for first licence for light passenger vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017), for Table 1 (vehicles other than higher rate diesel vehicles) substitute—

  

  0
  50
  0
  10


  50
  75
  15
  25


  75
  90
  105
  115


  90
  100
  130
  140


  100
  110
  150
  160


  110
  130
  170
  180


  130
  150
  210
  220


  150
  170
  545
  555


  170
  190
  885
  895


  190
  225
  1335
  1345


  225
  255
  1900
  1910


  255
  —
  2235
  2245”

  

(6) In that paragraph, for Table 2 (higher rate diesel vehicles) substitute—

  

  0
  50
  25


  50
  75
  115


  75
  90
  140


  90
  100
  160


  100
  110
  180


  110
  130
  220


  130
  150
  555


  150
  170
  895


  170
  190
  1345


  190
  225
  1910


  225
  255
  2245


  255
  —
  2245”.

  

(7) In paragraph 1GD(1) (rates for any other licence for light passenger vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017)—
(a) in paragraph (a) (reduced rate), for “£140” substitute “£145”, and
(b) in paragraph (b) (standard rate), for “£150” substitute “£155”.
(8) In paragraph 1GE(2) (rates for light passenger vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017 with a price exceeding £40,000)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “£465” substitute “£480”, and
(b) in paragraph (b), for “£475” substitute “£490”.
(9) In paragraph 1J(a) (rates for light goods vehicles that are not pre-2007 or post-2008 lower emission vans), for “£265” substitute “£275”.
(10) In paragraph 2(1) (rates for motorcycles)—
(a) in paragraph (a) (engine cylinder capacity not exceeding 150cc), for “£20” substitute “£21”,
(b) in paragraph (b) (motor bicycles with engine cylinder capacity exceeding 150cc but not exceeding 400cc), for “£44” substitute “£45”,
(c) in paragraph (c) (motor bicycles with engine cylinder capacity exceeding 400cc but not exceeding 600cc), for “£67” substitute “£69”, and
(d) in paragraph (d) (other cases), for “£93” substitute “£96”.
(11) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to licences taken out on or after 1 April 2021.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

56. Vehicle excise duty (rebates where higher rate of duty paid)

Resolved,
That—
(1) Section 19 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (rebates of vehicle excise duty) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3A) for “subsection (3B)” substitute “subsections (3B) and (3C)”.
(3) After subsection (3B) insert—
“(3C) Where the annual rate of duty chargeable on a vehicle licence at the time when it was taken out is determined in accordance with paragraph 1GE(2) of Schedule 1 (higher rates of duty: vehicles with a price exceeding £40,000) the relevant amount is given by—
where—
H is the annual rate of duty chargeable on the licence at the time when it was taken out;
R is the number of complete months (if any) of that part of the of the currency of the licence which is unexpired—
(a) in respect of which the rebate condition is satisfied, and
(b) which are within the period of six years beginning with the day of registration;
L is the annual rate of duty that would have been chargeable on the licence at the time when it was taken out if that time had been after the period of six years beginning with the day of registration;
P is the number of complete months (if any) of that part of the of the currency of the licence which is unexpired—
(a) in respect of which the rebate condition is satisfied, and
(b) which are not within R.
(3D) In subsection (3C) the “day of registration” means the day on which the vehicle in respect of which the licence is in force was first registered under this Act or under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.”
(4) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to cases where a rebate condition (within the meaning of section 19 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994) is satisfied on or after 1 April 2021.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

57. HGV road user levy (extension of suspension)

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 88 of the Finance Act 2020 (suspension of HGV road user levy)

58. Rates of air passenger duty

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year increasing the rates of air passenger duty.

59. Amounts of gross gaming yield charged to gaming duty

Resolved,
That—
(1) In section 11(2) of the Finance Act 1997 (rates of gaming duty), for the table substitute—

  

  The first £2,548,500
  15%


  The next £1,757,000
  20%


  The next £3,077,000
  30%


  The next £6,494,500
  40%


  The remainder
  50%”.

  

(2) The amendment made by this Resolution has effect in relation to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2021.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

60. Rates of climate change levy (future years)

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year amending the rates of climate change levy.

61. Rates of landfill tax

Resolved,
That—
(1) Section 42 of the Finance Act 1996 (amount of landfill tax) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) (standard rate), for “£94.15” substitute “£96.70”.
(3) In subsection (2) (reduced rate for certain disposals), in the words after paragraph (b)—
(a) for “£94.15” substitute “£96.70”, and
(b) for “£3” substitute “£3.10”.
(4) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to disposals made (or treated as made) on or after 1 April 2021.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

62. Carbon emissions tax (repeal)

Resolved,
That provision may be made repealing Part 3 of the Finance Act 2019.

63. Freeports (designation of sites)

Resolved,
That—
(1) The Treasury may by regulations designate an area in Great Britain as a special area for the purposes of—
(2) Part 2 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (plant and machinery allowances),
(a) Part 2A of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (structures and buildings allowances), and
(b) where the area is in England, Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 (stamp duty land tax).
(2) An area may only be designated by regulations under this Resolution if, at the time the regulations are made—
(a) the area is situated in a freeport, or
(b) the Treasury consider that the area is being used, or is likely to be used, for purposes connected with activities carried on, or likely to be carried on, in a freeport.
(3) An area designated under this Resolution is to be known as a “freeport tax site”.
(4) Regulations under this Resolution must specify the date on which the designation takes effect.
(5) In this Resolution, “freeport” means an area which is identified as a freeport in a document published by, or with the consent of, the Treasury for the purposes of this Resolution (and not withdrawn).
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

64. Freeports (capital allowances)

Resolved,
That provision may be made about—
(a) first-year allowances under Part 2 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 in respect of expenditure incurred on plant and machinery for use in an area designated by the Treasury, and
(b) allowances under Part 2A of that Act in respect of expenditure incurred on buildings or structures situated in such an area.

65. Freeports (stamp duty land tax)

Resolved,
That—
(1) Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 (stamp duty land tax) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 61 insert—
“61A Relief for freeport tax sites
(1) Schedule 6C provides for relief in the case of transactions relating to land in a freeport tax site.
(2) In that Schedule—
(a) Part 1 contains definitions,
(b) Part 2 makes provision about the relief,
(c) Part 3 makes provision about the withdrawal of the relief, and
(d) Part 4 confers power to change the cases in which the relief is available.
(3) Relief under that Schedule is available only in relation to a land transaction with an effective date falling on or before 30 September 2026.
(4) Any relief under that Schedule must be claimed in a land transaction return or an amendment of such a return.
(5) A claim for relief under that Schedule must—
(a) be made on or before 14 October 2027, and
(b) include, or be accompanied by, such information as HMRC may require.”
(3) In section 81 (further return where relief withdrawn)—
(a) in subsection (1A), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) Part 3 of Schedule 6C (relief for freeport tax sites),”,
(b) in subsection (1B), after paragraph (ea) insert—
“(eb) in the case of relief under Schedule 6C (relief for freeport tax sites), the last day in the control period on which the qualifying freeport land is used exclusively in a qualifying manner;”, and
(c) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Terms used in paragraph (eb) of subsection (1B) which are defined for the purposes of Schedule 6C have the same meaning in that paragraph as they have in that Schedule.
(4B) Paragraph 10 of Schedule 6C applies for the purposes of subsection (1B)(eb) as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 8 of that Schedule.”
(4) In section 86(2) (payment of tax), after paragraph (za) insert—
“(zb) Part 3 of Schedule 6C (relief for freeport tax sites),”.
(5) In section 87(3) (interest on unpaid tax), after paragraph (aza) insert—
“(azaa) in the case of an amount payable because relief is withdrawn under Part 3 of Schedule 6C (relief for freeport tax sites), the date which is the relevant date for the purposes of section 81(1A);”.
(6) After Schedule 6B insert—

“SCHEDULE 6C - Stamp duty land tax: relief for freeport tax sites

Part 1 - Qualifying freeport land

Transaction land
1 In this Schedule, “transaction land”, in relation to a land transaction, means land a chargeable interest in which is the subject matter of the transaction.
Qualifying freeport land
2 For the purposes of this Schedule, transaction land is “qualifying freeport land” if, on the effective date of the transaction—
(a) it is situated in a freeport tax site, and
(b) the purchaser intends it to be used exclusively in a qualifying manner.
Use of land in a qualifying manner
3 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, transaction land is used in a qualifying manner if—
(a) it is used by the purchaser or a connected person in the course of a commercial trade or profession,
(b) it is developed or redeveloped by the purchaser or a connected person for use (by any person) in the course of a commercial trade or profession,
(c) it is exploited by the purchaser or a connected person, in the course of a commercial trade or profession, as a source of rents or other receipts (other than excluded rents), or
(d) it is used in two or more of the ways described in paragraphs (a) to (c).
(2) But land is not used in a qualifying manner to the extent that it is—
(a) used as a dwelling or as the garden or grounds of a dwelling,
(b) developed or redeveloped to become residential property,
(c) exploited as a source of rents or other receipts payable by a person using the land as a dwelling or as the garden or grounds of a dwelling, or
(d) held (as stock of the business) for resale without development or redevelopment.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, use of land in the course of a commercial trade or profession includes use of land for a purpose that is ancillary to the use of other land which—
(a) is situated in a freeport tax site, and
(b) is being used, or developed or redeveloped, in the course of a commercial trade or profession.
(4) The references in sub-paragraph (2) to land used as the garden or grounds of a dwelling include a building or structure on the land.
(5) The references in this paragraph to doing something in the course of a commercial trade or profession include doing something in the course of a property rental business.
(6) In this paragraph—
“commercial”, in relation to a trade or profession, means carried on—
(a) on a commercial basis, and
(b) with a view to profit;
“excluded rents” has the same meaning as in section 133 of the Finance Act 2013;
“property rental business” means a property business as defined in Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005.
Connected persons
4 (1) In this Schedule, “connected person” means a person who is connected with the purchaser.
(2) Section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (connected persons) has effect for the purposes of this paragraph.

Part 2 - The relief

Exemption
5 (1) This paragraph applies to a land transaction if at least 90% of the chargeable consideration for the transaction is attributable to qualifying freeport land.
(2) The transaction is exempt from charge.
Other relief
6 (1) This paragraph applies to a land transaction if the proportion of the chargeable consideration for the transaction that is attributable to qualifying freeport land (“the relevant proportion”) is less than 90% but at least 10%.
(2) The tax chargeable in respect of the transaction is reduced by the relevant proportion.
Attributing chargeable consideration to land
7 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, the consideration attributable to qualifying freeport land must be determined on a just and reasonable basis.
(2) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) apply if less than 100% of the chargeable consideration attributable to transaction land situated in a freeport tax site (“the freeport consideration”) is attributable to land that satisfies the condition in paragraph 2(b).
(3) If at least 90% of the freeport consideration is attributable to land that satisfies the condition in paragraph 2(b) then, for the purposes of this Schedule, all of the freeport consideration is to be treated as being attributable to qualifying freeport land.
(4) If less than 10% of the freeport consideration is attributable to land that satisfies the condition in paragraph 2(b) then, for the purposes of this Schedule, all of the freeport consideration is to be treated as not being attributable to qualifying freeport land.

Part 3 - Withdrawal of Relief

Withdrawal of relief
8 (1) This paragraph applies where relief under Part 2 of this Schedule has been allowed in respect of a land transaction.
(2) The relief is withdrawn if, at any time during the control period, the qualifying freeport land is not used exclusively in a qualifying manner.
(3) But the relief is not withdrawn where, because of a change in circumstances that is unforeseen and beyond the purchaser’s control, it is not reasonable to expect the qualifying freeport land to be used exclusively in a qualifying manner at that time.
(4) Where, at a time during the control period, the use of all or part of the qualifying freeport land in a qualifying manner has not yet begun, that land, or that part of the land, is to be treated as being used exclusively in a qualifying manner if reasonable steps are being taken to ensure that it is used in that manner.
(5) Where, at a time during the control period, the use of all or part of the qualifying freeport land in a qualifying manner has ceased, that land, or that part of the land, is to be treated as being used exclusively in a qualifying manner if reasonable steps are being taken—
(a) to ensure that it is used in that manner, or
(b) to dispose of all chargeable interests in that land, or that part of the land, that are held by the purchaser and connected persons in a timely manner.
The control period
9 (1) In this Schedule, “the control period”, in relation to a land transaction, means the shorter of—
(a) the period of three years beginning with the effective date of that transaction, and
(b) the period beginning with the effective date of that transaction and ending with the effective date of the final transaction.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a land transaction is “the final transaction” if, immediately after the effective date of the transaction, neither the purchaser nor a connected person holds a chargeable interest in the qualifying freeport land (whether as a result of that transaction alone or as a result of that transaction and other land transactions).
Disposal of interest in part of qualifying freeport land during control period
10 (1) This paragraph applies where the purchaser ceases to hold a chargeable interest in part of the qualifying freeport land during the control period.
(2) The references in paragraphs 8 and 9 to the qualifying freeport land are to be treated as references only to the part of the qualifying freeport land in relation to which the purchaser still holds a chargeable interest (whether the chargeable interest acquired in the land transaction in respect of which relief was allowed under Part 2 of this Schedule or another chargeable interest).

Part 4 - Power to change when relief is available

Power to change the cases in which relief is available
11 (1) The Treasury may by regulations—
(a) amend the meaning of “qualifying freeport land”,
(b) add other conditions that must be met in order for relief to be available under this Schedule, and
(c) amend or remove conditions added under paragraph (b).
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may not remove the requirement for land to be situated in a freeport tax site.
(3) Regulations under this paragraph may, among other things—
(a) make provision by reference to the land, the land transaction, the purchaser or connected persons;
(b) impose conditions relating to accounts or other records;
(c) impose other conditions requiring a person to take steps specified in the regulations.
(4) Regulations under this paragraph—
(a) may amend, repeal or otherwise modify provisions of this Schedule, and
(b) where made in reliance on section 114(6)(c), may amend, repeal or otherwise modify other provisions of this Act.
Approval of regulations
12 (1) An instrument containing regulations under paragraph 11 must be laid before the House of Commons after being made.
(2) If the regulations are not approved by the House of Commons before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which they are made, they cease to have effect at the end of that period (if they have not already ceased to have effect under sub- paragraph (3)).
(3) If, on any day during that period of 28 days, the House of Commons, in proceedings on a motion that (or to the effect that) the regulations be approved, comes to a decision rejecting the regulations, they shall cease to have effect at the end of that day.
(4) In reckoning any such period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which—
(a) Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, or
(b) the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.
(5) Where regulations cease to have effect under sub-paragraph (3), their ceasing to have effect is without prejudice to anything done in reliance on them.”
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

66. Penalties (failure to make returns etc)

Resolved,
That provision may be made about the imposition of penalties—
(a) in respect of failures to make returns under the Taxes Management Act 1970 or returns relating to value added tax,
(b) on a person who, by failing to make a return under the Taxes Management Act 1970, deliberately withholds information which would enable or assist Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to assess the person’s liability to tax, and
(c) in respect of failures to pay amounts of income tax, capital gains tax or value added tax on time.

67. Follower notice penalties

Resolved,
That provision may be made to—
(a) reduce the amount of the penalty under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Finance Act 2014 otherwise than in cases where persons have acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings, and
(b) make amendments to the way in which such penalties are aggregated with other penalties.

68. Late payment interest and repayment interest (value added tax)

Resolved,
That provision may be made about interest on sums payable to or by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in respect of value added tax.

69. Promoters of tax avoidance schemes

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending Part 5 of the Finance Act 2014.

70. Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending Part 7 of the Finance Act 2004 and Schedule 17 to the Finance (No.2) Act 2017 for the purposes of—
(a) allowing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to allocate reference numbers in relation to arrangements and proposals suspected of being notifiable,
(b) imposing requirements relating to the disclosure of information where reference numbers are allocated, and
(c) allowing for the publication of information.

71. Penalties for enablers of defeated tax avoidance

Resolved,
That provision may be made about—
(a) the powers of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to obtain information about enablers of defeated tax avoidance for the purposes of Schedule 16 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017,
(b) the assessment of penalties under that Schedule in relation to arrangements within paragraph 21 of that Schedule (multi-user schemes), and
(c) the publication of details of persons who have incurred penalties under that Schedule.

72. The general anti-abuse rule (partnerships)

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending Part 5 of the Finance Act 2013 in relation to partnerships.

73. Licensing authorities (requirements to give or obtain tax information)

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made, including provision taking effect in a future year, requiring licensing authorities, when licensing certain activities, to give or obtain information relating to tax compliance.

74. Information-gathering powers

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made amending Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 in relation to the giving of notices to financial institutions, the giving of notices for the purpose of collecting tax debts and for the purpose of checking whether relief from stamp duty land tax is withdrawn or otherwise removed, the imposition of increased daily default penalties and the disclosure of notices.

75. Implementation of OECD model rules on the gig economy

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made to give effect to—
(a) the OECD Model Rules for Reporting by Platform Operators with respect to Sellers in the Sharing and Gig Economy, and
(b) any other international agreement or arrangements to which the United Kingdom is a party that make provision corresponding, or similar, to that made by those Model Rules.

76. Unauthorised removal or disposal of seized goods

Resolved,
That provision may be made about the unauthorised removal or disposal of a thing from the place where it is seized as liable to forfeiture under an enactment relating to customs or excise.

77. Temporary approvals etc pending reviews or appeals

Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made for temporary approvals, registrations or licences of persons or places pending reviews or appeals under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Finance Act 1994.

78. Replacement of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)

Resolved,
That provision may be made (including provision having retrospective effect)—
(a) for the purposes of replacing LIBOR with the incremental borrowing rate, and
(b) about the tax consequences of things done in anticipation of, or in connection with, the reform or discontinuance of LIBOR or another reference rate.

79. Powers of the Treasury to amend legislation relating to banks

Resolved,
That provision may be made—
(a) modifying existing powers of the Treasury to amend legislation relating to banks, and
(b) conferring new powers on the Treasury to amend interpretation provisions in legislation relating to banks.

80. Incidental provision etc

Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise—
(a) any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) that may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation, and
(b) any incidental or consequential provision (including provision having retrospective effect) relating to provision authorised by any other resolution.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, Secretary Robert Jenrick, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch bring in the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
Steve Barclay accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 270) with explanatory notes (Bill 270-EN).

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Building and Buildings

That the draft Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 February, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Rosie Winterton: The House has just agreed that amendments and new clauses may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table. In the present circumstances, Members are asked to send their amendments by email to the Public Bill Office—pbohoc@parliament.uk—to arrive before the rise of the House.

Delegated Legislation (Electoral Commission)

Motion made,
That the Motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Hon. Members:: Object.

Covid-19: Workplace Protection

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Marcus Jones.)

Justin Madders: The last year has seen extraordinary changes in the way we live our lives, with enormous hardship, enormous heartache and enormous sacrifice for many. As has been demonstrated in this place, the way that many people work has changed. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House staff and Mr Speaker for everything they have done to ensure that Members can still do their jobs remotely and safely.
But not everyone has had that choice. For many, their jobs have not only continued as before, but the dangers and pressures associated with them have increased tenfold. Those working in health and social care are the most obvious example of that, with over 800 people sadly losing their lives so far after contracting covid, but many others have also had to face new pressures and dangers as a result of the pandemic. The Government have been too slow to recognise those challenges, so I want to use tonight’s debate to highlight those issues.
The matters that I intend to raise are a combination of issues drawn to my attention by individual constituents and by trade unions, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not all the issues raised with me are new deficiencies in workplace protection. In fact, they all follow a familiar pattern that has been given an extra dimension by covid. What they add up to is a difficult environment for workers where legitimate concerns are not addressed or, worse, are met with detrimental treatment.
I will start with self-isolation. This time last year, the Opposition identified a real issue with any strategy to deal with the pandemic that involved requiring those who tested positive to self-isolate. For many, the financial consequences of not going into work are significant. Many people do not get company sick pay, and statutory sick pay is not enough for people to live on, but perhaps more relevant to the debate is the fact that many people are working in jobs where they do not even qualify for SSP. It was not until six months into the pandemic that the Government finally recognised that by introducing the self-isolation payment. However, seven out of eight people do not qualify for it. That remains a huge hole in our defences.
I would like to focus on some of the issues that people have experienced with their employers when they have had to self-isolate. They do not have any protection from their employer for detrimental treatment. That detriment could be refusal to pay sick pay if they are entitled to it, or it could even be dismissal. I have heard from constituents of cases where a period of self-isolation was used by an employer to trigger a sickness absence review or was used as part of a process that was already under way. I am sure we can all understand the genuine anxieties that people might have if they have to tell their employer that they need to self-isolate—even more so if it is for a second or third time—so why do they have no protection for doing the right thing?
The Government could, either through guidance or regulations, state clearly that a period of self-isolation should be classed as “other leave” that cannot be called unauthorised leave, sickness absence or annual leave  and cannot be used as part of any disciplinary or capability process. What of those suffering with long covid? Will the Government add that to the list of conditions classed as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, or will they expect people to prove that they are protected by the Act every time they want to raise an issue?
In terms of those with long-term medical conditions, we know that people with diabetes are at increased risk. Many with diabetes have been able to shield, but what workplace protections will be in place to support people who are clinically extremely vulnerable when shielding ends on 31 March? Are the Government confident that workplace risk will have significantly reduced after that date? Diabetes UK’s research shows that 69% of people with diabetes working outside the home felt unsafe in their workplace. Covid-19 is not going to go away, and neither are those concerns.

Jim Shannon: A half-hour debate is probably not enough for the issues that could be raised. I know that the hon. Member has been contacted on numerous occasions by people who feel that their health has not been properly protected since the outbreak of covid-19. Does he agree that the information provided by public health agencies was slow in surfacing and that lessons need to be learnt even at this stage about the guidance given to small and medium-sized businesses on workplace protection, which is very important?

Justin Madders: I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention; he makes an important point. In the early stages of the pandemic, it was difficult for everyone to know exactly what the right thing to do was, but there is no excuse for that now. We have a lot more detail on how covid operates, and we know that it will be with us for some considerable time.
I turn to fire and rehire. This is not a new development—it has been around for as long as people have had jobs—but that does not make it acceptable. In fact, it shows that our employment protections are as antiquated as they are inadequate. GMB and Unite in particular have been involved in a number of high-profile examples of fire and rehire, and there is no doubt that the pandemic has seen the number of examples of this increase dramatically. The current crisis has shone a light on the imbalance of power in the employment relationship and how many people feel totally exposed to the whims of their employer. Their powerlessness does not just manifest itself in people losing their jobs. The imbalance is endemic across many workplaces. Look at everyone on zero-hours contracts, in the gig economy or in agency work—they are literally at their company’s beck and call.
Insecurity is baked into the workplace. It is little wonder that so many people feel a sense of helplessness. When ruthless employers use the cover of the pandemic to push home their advantage, it is time for the Government to step in. That people have job security in this country is an illusion for many. Even for those who are in what we might consider stable employment, any pretence of job security has been cruelly exposed by fire and rehire, which, I am sorry to say, has become almost as widespread as the virus in the last 12 months. People who face a dismissal and re-engagement, to give it its proper legal terminology, are often concerned that they are in this situation at all. Yes, they might have been employed by  the same company for many years. Yes, their terms and conditions have remained largely unchanged. They may even have had them collectively agreed by their trade union. The job itself has not changed. It still needs to be done. They perform well and the company is still making good profits, so why are they suddenly being asked to come in and do the job for 20% less pay?
The answer to that lies in the destructive combination of weak employment laws, an indifferent Government and an opportunistic employer who is seizing the moment to chip away at hard-won rights. What then follows is a consultation period that amounts to nothing more than a box-ticking exercise, followed by an impossible dilemma of losing your job altogether or coming back into work the following week on less money. It is a race to the bottom that coronavirus has accelerated. It is time that race was stopped.
Of course, plenty of employers have struggled this year. We know that. That is why the furlough scheme was created, but there are some employers out there who, despite taking advantage of furlough, have still pushed ahead with fire and rehire tactics because they saw an opportunity to make a few more quid for their shareholders. I personally do not think that employers should be taking taxpayers’ cash with one hand only to be giving out dismissal notices with the other. I would like to see the Government saying to those companies that they take the money on the basis that they will support and protect people in their existing jobs, not chip away at them.
The law on unfair dismissal and “some other substantial reason” needs to be fundamentally strengthened so that the onus is on the employer to show that any such changes were essential to secure the survival of the business. That would raise the threshold for employers seeking to justify dismissal from the current test of “sound or good reason”, which we know tribunals do not examine in detail. It adds insult to injury that those who choose not to succumb to the financial blackmail of fire and rehire do not even get a redundancy payment. The Government should be looking to enhance job protection. The furlough scheme is the start of a recognition by the state that it has a role to keep people in work and keep them secure. Let us not abandon that principle now. Let us build on it.
One of the main problems has been people being asked to go into work despite being able to work from home, which is, of course, contrary to the Government’s “stay at home” message that has been in place for much of the past year. Thanks to the marvels of technology, many more people have been able to work from home, but some employers seem to have a very old fashioned attitude that unless they can see the person in front of them, even if they are just sat in front of a computer screen, they cannot be sure that they are working.
Many people have been forced to go into work unnecessarily, including people with underlying health conditions. I even had a constituent who had to go into work when they were supposed to be shielding; what was particularly of note was that the individual had been shielding from home during the previous two lockdowns and had performed their duties from home without any problem. In the third lockdown, however, that was suddenly not acceptable. That is a pattern we have seen with a number of other employers. Their willingness to support those shielding seems to have  dropped off a little bit this year. It is almost as if their patience has worn thin. That has also manifested itself in the number of complaints I have had about staff without any health issues who have also been asked to go back into work contrary to the work at home instruction.
Sadly, we have come across someone who was made redundant after complaining about being required to go to work when they could have easily carried out those duties at home. They did not have two years’ service, so they could not claim unfair dismissal. It was difficult to see how they could use other health and safety-related protections, given the difficulties with that law. It is to be welcomed that the Government have just published new regulations which will extend protection to those classed as workers when raising health and safety issues, but it is disappointing that that is not due to come into force until 31 May. People need that protection now; they needed it 12 months ago. It is good that it is being extended to workers, but there are still too many people who are not classed as workers, or, in the case of Uber drivers, who had to fight a five-year court battle just to get that recognition. The Government really need to clean up and strengthen the rules in this area so that everyone in work has basic protections and we do not have the unfair, uneven and exploitative lottery that it is at the moment.
We are also getting more complaints about businesses that are not adhering to covid-19 measures and, sadly, some constituents are too afraid to tell us where they work because they are fearful of reprisals. They have raised concerns about their employer not applying social distancing, not allowing people to stay at home when they display symptoms, asking staff to come in while waiting for test results and telling staff not to disclose close contacts when they test positive. These are all real examples, and they completely undermine the Government’s attempts to restrict transmission of the virus. People need better support, and they need greater reassurance that when they raise concerns they will be addressed and, critically, that there will be no reprisals for them as individuals.
I spent 15 years before I came here representing people who had been victims of workplace injustice, and very often the reason they had been on the receiving end of that treatment was that they had raised a legitimate concern with their employer. Sadly, it seems that things have got worse rather than better in the past few years. In the past year, those concerns have increased tenfold because the number of issues an employee might reasonably raise with their employer about the inadequate level of protection they get when they go into work has increased considerably.
This is not just about workplace protections now. It is in all our interests that people can go about their business and go to work safely. Those who are in a trade union are able to raise concerns collectively, and one such example is from the GMB. It has raised concerns about the guidance on working in other people’s homes, which has changed during this lockdown. The union believes this is creating greater risk. The guidance now mentions meter reading specifically as being a permitted reason for someone to enter a home. The concern is that those meter readers could become super-spreaders and that they are putting themselves and the householders at unnecessary risk just to get a meter reading, which could be done in a number of ways. Unlike a plumber  or an electrician, who might enter a handful of properties each day, meter readers can enter hundreds of homes each day, putting themselves and the public at risk. That really needs looking at again.
I want to say a few words on retail. Those working in supermarkets and other essential retail have been working throughout the crisis and have at times faced incredible pressure. They have played a critical role in keeping the country going and I pay tribute to them, but unfortunately not everyone appreciates the work they do. The shop workers’ trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, surveyed its members and found that 76% of them said that abuse had been worse than normal during the pandemic, that 57% had been threatened by a customer and that 9% had been assaulted. We should not be surprised that abuse has increased, given that enforcing social distancing and face coverings were reported in the survey as being two of the biggest triggers for abuse from customers, and these were not issues before the pandemic started.
This highlights a disconnect between what has been decided in this place—regarding face coverings, for example—and the reality on the ground as to how those rules, which were introduced for a very good reason, are enforced. The police cannot be everywhere, and after a cut of 20,000 officers in the last decade, handing them a plethora of new laws to enforce was never going to be realistic. This is placing those who work in retail and hospitality, to name but two, in a difficult and potentially dangerous position.
When we pass laws in this place about important safety measures to stop the spread of the virus, we also need to look at ourselves and ask whether we are setting the right example. I am sorry to say that there have been a few recent high-profile examples of Government bodies not taking the lead. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea has been in the headlines a lot recently due to the number of cases contracted in the workplace there. I understand that work was commissioned in June 2020 to look at home working at the DVLA, but that the recognised trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, has not been granted sight of that report and has instead been told to go through the freedom of information route to see it.
I appreciate that this does not involve the Minister’s Department, but as the Minister responsible for the workplace, can he please have a word with the Department for Transport and point out that discussions about safe workplaces are not a matter to be pursued through FOI requests? This should involve both parties sitting down and engaging in constructive dialogue. I understand that 300-plus desks have recently been removed by the DVLA to ensure that social distancing is possible, but if that is right, how can it also be right that staff had been working in those conditions since last August? Is this lack of distancing the reason that there have been more than 550 positive cases at the DVLA since September last year? The Government and their agencies should be setting an example to other employers on how to operate safely and responsibly.
On that note, perhaps the Minister could also speak to his colleagues in the Department for Justice about the fact that court staff in London and Liverpool have balloted for industrial action because their union, PCS,  says that its safety concerns have not been taken seriously, with not even a risk assessment process having been agreed between the employer and union. We really need to be doing better than this.
It is not an understatement to say that workplace health and safety, far from being a regulatory burden, is now a fundamental part of our return to normality and, indeed, key to wider economic success. That means that we need stronger regulatory interventions, and in this regard the decision to recognise covid as a “significant” rather than a “serious” workplace issue limits the options open to inspectors. I hope that that is something the Minister can look at again. A safe workforce is a productive workforce. It is good for employers and the economy. If this pandemic has taught us anything about the workplace, it is that it is too often characterised by insecurity, imbalance and indifference to basic protections. It is time we changed that.

Paul Scully: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing a debate on this important topic. I echo his thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the staff of the House, who have allowed us to continue our business to the best of our abilities. I add my condolences to all the friends and families of the people who have lost their lives and suffered throughout this pandemic.
There is no doubt that the pandemic is one of the greatest challenges that the UK has faced, and as Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets, I see daily the difficult choices that individuals and businesses have had to make as we manage the threat to public health. One of my priorities has been to support businesses in making their workplaces covid-secure to ensure that they are able to operate as safely as possible, to keep our economy going and to protect workers and customers.
Before I speak in greater depth about the practical steps we have taken, I would like to pay tribute to the businesses we have worked with to make workplace protection a reality. As we have heard, a number of businesses have remained open for the duration of the pandemic, providing us with the essential goods and infrastructure that we need in the short and longer term. I am hugely grateful to them and their incredible staff. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that safe workplaces and safe staff make a productive workforce. Those businesses have made significant efforts over the past year.
I recognise that many sectors have not been permitted to operate as usual, including, as we have heard, hospitality, personal care, tourism and the performing arts. I commend their perseverance and adaptability in transforming into covid-secure businesses at such speed. Not all those sectors fall under my Department, but I am acutely aware that they continue to face significant pressure, and some businesses have been unable to reopen at all. The road map provides a route out of the current lockdown in England, but I recognise the tremendous difficulties that businesses have been experiencing and continue to endure in the face of the pandemic. We will continue to do all we can to support the British people and businesses through this moment of crisis.
As announced last week in the Budget, and as we heard earlier today, the Budget continues to provide unprecedented levels of support for the economy, protecting jobs and livelihoods across the whole of the UK. The Chancellor announced an additional £65 billion of further measures to support the economy in 2021-22. That will take the total support for the economy to £407 billion—the largest peacetime support package on record.
Following the Prime Minister’s announcement of the nationwide lockdown measures almost a year ago, the Government have worked tirelessly to develop clear guidance on how to work safely across a range of workplace settings. We consulted numerous businesses, industry leaders, trade unions and local and central Government organisations to develop the covid-secure guidance. We did that in close collaboration with Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive to reflect the latest expert advice at each stage of the Government’s response to the pandemic. The guidance gives practical considerations for how to adapt a workplace to make it covid-secure, including simple but vital measures such as completing a workplace risk assessment that factors in covid-19, cleaning more often—both hands and surfaces—maintaining social distancing and putting in place mitigations where social distancing is not possible.
The guidance also raises other practical considerations, such as considering ventilation in line with HSE guidance—something that will continue to be very important—adapting a workplace layout to facilitate social distancing, and reducing the need for face-to-face meetings, including working from home where possible. It also reminds businesses of the need to support NHS Test and Trace, and to comply with face covering and self-isolation rules and others.

Justin Madders: The Minister is talking about risk assessments. Will he look at the concern that I have raised about court staff, and the Ministry of Justice and the Courts and Tribunals Service not agreeing on the process for a risk assessment in their working environment?

Paul Scully: I noted the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave of the DVLA and the court system, and I will certainly reflect on those and take them back.
The key thing is that the guidance also reminds employers of their duty to consider those with protected characteristics, as the hon. Gentleman says—those shielding or those with other vulnerabilities—and take particular care to factor their needs into workplace risk assessments. Every organisation is different and employers must translate the guidance into specific actions to take, depending on the nature of their organisation, such as its size and type and how it is organised, operated and managed. The duty is on employers to ensure that the risk assessment for their business addresses the risk of covid-19 to anyone affected by the business. The Health and Safety Executive, local authorities and health and safety representatives within businesses—and, of course, trade unions—ensure that support is available to help businesses to implement the right control measures. So we urge businesses to continue to keep their risk assessments up to date and maintain dialogue with their workers over the measures put in place for their safety. As we have heard, it is not always the case, but we must make sure that we press that home to all businesses.
The guidance does remain robust in the light of the new virus strains, although that is continuously reviewed as new data emerges. To continue to protect the most vulnerable in our society, businesses should continue to follow the guidance, even if employees have received a negative test result or have been vaccinated.
Following the publication of the road map, at this key point in the UK’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Government have taken the opportunity to build on the collective input and insights shared by businesses, unions and representative organisations. Almost a year from its initial publication, the message we hear most frequently is that continuity is key for businesses, and that the guidance is embedded and well understood. That does not mean that there is nothing left to learn about how well the guidance has been working in practice, and we have consulted widely to consider any improvements that we can make ahead of the reopening. The Government will provide further advice on how businesses can improve fresh air flow in indoor workplaces and introduce regular testing, as set out in the road map. User feedback is good and levels of compliance are high, but we must not be complacent. The covid-secure guidelines are underpinned by the health and safety legislation as regards the need to conduct a risk assessment, as well as certain requirements set out in new regulations brought forward by the House under the public health legislative framework. Enforcing authorities have been given the powers they need to enforce covid rules where necessary, for the purposes of controlling the spread of infection. Those powers are robust and proportionate, ranging from issuing fixed penalty notices to closing down a business in extremis. We continue to work closely with businesses and across Government to ensure that we maintain these high levels of compliance. If someone has a concern about the measures in a workplace, they should consult their health and safety representatives in the first instance.

Justin Madders: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. In terms of the enforcement powers that are at the disposal of inspectors, is the Minister able to say how many improvement notices or fixed penalty notices have been issued?

Paul Scully: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer at the moment, but I will find that out for him.
We have given more resource to the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that it can do its job to the best of its ability. We do look to people to come forward with evidence, and that includes not just employees but trade unions and other representatives as well. We make sure that we encourage all businesses, especially if they are considering reopening after a period of closure, to take the time to review and refresh their risk assessments in line with the latest advice.
Although there is much cause for hope and optimism with the vaccine roll-out, we must be mindful not to prematurely relax the social distancing and other safety measures that have been put in place to protect workers and the most vulnerable in society. As set out in the road map, covid-secure guidance will remain applicable throughout steps 1 to 3. At step 4, subject to review, we hope to relax legal limits on social contact and open the remaining closed settings, including clubs and large  events, and including weddings. But the Government have been clear that some safety measures must still be required from summer onwards.
To cover a couple of areas that we have talked about, I have been working with the retail sector, including USDAW, to help as regards the violence shown to retail staff, who have done amazing work during the pandemic.
Fire and rehire, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has been raised a number of times in this place. It is important that, yes, we retain our flexible employment practice, but it should not be used as a bullyboy tactic by large companies against their workers. He said correctly that any reasonable, sensible and forward-thinking employer would understand that treating their employees well gets the best out of them, makes it a productive business, and, ultimately, gets the best for the shareholder in the long term. We have charged ACAS with looking at the evidence to see how systematically the practice is being used. It has reported back, and I will be examining what it says.
On self-isolation, we have put in £110 million of funding for the test and trace support payment. A further £20 million per month will go to local authorities   from March 2021. That will ensure that local authorities can continue to make payments and support people on low incomes to stay at home and self-isolate when required.
On zero-hour contracts, we must get the balance right to make sure that people who work on such contracts enjoy the flexibility of such work—the vast majority of students and young parents involved in such contracts do appreciate that flexibility. We have banned exclusive contracts, and we want to make sure that, in having that flexibility, people are not being exploited. I look forward to the Employment Bill coming forward so that we can look further at a number of issues around the gig economy, including making sure that our flexible working is a fair way of working. I can confirm that we will continue to work with all sectors of the economy as we forge a successful, long-term recovery from this pandemic. I remain grateful to businesses for everything that they currently do, and will do in the future, to help us to build back better.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney  North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and  Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Chris Loder


  Stuart Anderson  (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and  Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South  Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron  Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West  Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East  Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Paula Barker (Liverpool,  Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and  Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield  Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Bowie (West  Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South  Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South  Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of  Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East  Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Simon Clarke  (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South  Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde)  (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli  Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and  Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford  South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton  North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and  Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop  Auckland) (Con)
  Ben Everitt


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi  (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly  (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid  Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Duguid (Banff and  Buchan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith  (Chingford and Woodford  Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and  Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton  North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood  (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Katherine Fletcher (South  Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham,  Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of  Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East  Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and  Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill  (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond  (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and  Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman  (Camberwell and Peckham)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson  (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge  (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson  (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid  Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool,  Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North  West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and  Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North  Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and  Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester,  Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid  Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrea Leadsom (South  Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh  (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great  Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger  (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Mark Logan (Bolton North  East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald  (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald  (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and  Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and  Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden  (Wolverhampton South East)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens  North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood  (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South  Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock  Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow  North West)
  Patrick Grady


  Damien Moore (Southport)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge- Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Chris Loder


  Holly Mumby-Croft  (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East  Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim)  (Con)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and  Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North  Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel  Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Antony Higginbotham


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham,  Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester  Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and  Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson  (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East  Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman  (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip,  Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and  Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby  North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness,  Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow  Central) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Emily Thornberry (Islington  South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North  Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North  Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan  (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Chris Loder


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping  Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and  Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and  Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead  (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North  Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West  Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams  (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson  (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mike Wood (Dudley South)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore